Consumercarts is reader-supported. Learn more
Arctic MX-2 vs Noctua NT-H1: Comparison
Arctic MX-2 and Noctua NT-H1 separate most on thermal conductivity: Arctic MX-2 at 5.6 W/mK, Noctua NT-H1 at 12.8 W/mK, 56% in favour of Noctua NT-H1. They match on electrical conductivity, safety notes and paste segment.
Specs
| Specification |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Compound Type | Carbon-Based | Metal-Oxide (no metallic particles) |
| Brand | Arctic | Noctua |
| Model | Arctic MX-2 | Noctua NT-H1 , NT-H1 |
| Thermal Conductivity | 5.6 W/mK-56% | 12.8 W/mK |
| Electrical Conductivity | Insulating | Insulating |
| Package Size | 4g, 30g, 65g | 3.5g / 10g tubes |
| Recommended Use | Mainstream CPU/GPU | Mainstream CPU/GPU, High-end CPU/GPU (Noctua's original flagship paste, superseded by NT-H2) |
| Reapplication Interval | Not consistently published | Long-term stable |
| Safety Notes | None | None |
| Paste Segment | Standard Paste | Standard Paste |
More comparisons in Thermal Paste
- Arctic MX-4 vs Corsair TM30 vs Noctua NT-H1
- Arctic MX-7 vs Noctua NT-H1
- Alphacool Eisschicht Thermal Pad 11W/mK vs Noctua NT-H1
- Arctic MX-2 vs Rosewill RCX-TC001
- Alphacool Apex Thermal Pad Soft 18W/mK vs Noctua NT-H1
- Arctic MX-2 vs Wakefield Thermal (Wakefield-Vette) Wakefield Solutions PL-1-3-1016-H Thermal Pad