Consumercarts is reader-supported. Learn more
Arctic MX-2 vs Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut: Comparison
Arctic MX-2 and Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut separate most on thermal conductivity: Arctic MX-2 at 5.6 W/mK, Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut at 73 W/mK, 92% in favour of Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut.
Specs
| Specification |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Compound Type | Carbon-Based | Liquid Metal (Gallium-based) |
| Brand | Arctic | Thermal Grizzly |
| Model | Arctic MX-2 | Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut , Conductonaut |
| Thermal Conductivity | 5.6 W/mK-92% | 73 W/mK |
| Electrical Conductivity | Insulating | Conductive (short-circuit risk) |
| Package Size | 4g, 30g, 65g | 1g syringe |
| Recommended Use | Mainstream CPU/GPU | Delidded-Direct-Die (experienced builders only) |
| Reapplication Interval | Not consistently published | Long-lasting but requires careful reapplication |
| Safety Notes | None | Reacts with aluminum; do not use on bare aluminum coldplates or near exposed components |
| Paste Segment | Standard Paste | Liquid Metal |
More comparisons in Thermal Paste
- Arctic MX-2 vs Rosewill RCX-TC001
- 3M Thermally Conductive Acrylic Interface Pad 5590H vs Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut
- Arctic MX-2 vs Wakefield Thermal (Wakefield-Vette) Wakefield Solutions PL-1-3-1016-H Thermal Pad
- Arctic MX-2 vs Phobya Thermal Pad Ultra 5W/mK
- Alphacool Apex 2 Thermal Paste vs Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut
- Arctic MX-2 vs Thermalright TFX