Consumercarts is reader-supported. Learn more
Arctic MX-4 vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut: Comparison
Arctic MX-4 and Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut separate most on thermal conductivity: Arctic MX-4 at 8.5 W/mK, Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut at 12.5 W/mK, 32% in favour of Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut. They match on 4 other specifications, including electrical conductivity, safety notes and curing.
Specs
| Specification |  |  |
|---|---|---|
| Compound Type | Carbon-Based | Silicone-Based |
| Brand | Arctic | Thermal Grizzly |
| Model | Arctic MX-4 , MX-4 | Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut , Kryonaut |
| Thermal Conductivity | 8.5 W/mK-32% | 12.5 W/mK |
| Electrical Conductivity | Insulating | Insulating |
| Package Size | 4g / 8g / 20g / 45g tubes | 1g / 5.55g / 11.1g tubes |
| Recommended Use | Mainstream CPU/GPU (builds on a tight budget) | High-end CPU/GPU (including overclocking) |
| Reapplication Interval | Up to 8 years | 1-2 years typical |
| Safety Notes | None | None |
| Curing | Non-Curing | Non-Curing |
| Paste Segment | Standard Paste | Standard Paste |
More comparisons in Thermal Paste
- Arctic MX-4 vs Corsair TM30 vs Noctua NT-H1
- Alphacool Subzero vs Arctic MX-4
- Alphacool Apex 2 Thermal Paste vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut
- Arctic MX-4 vs Phobya Thermal Pad Ultra 5W/mK
- Alphacool Apex Thermal Pad Soft 18W/mK vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut
- Alphacool Eisfrost Xtreme Liquid Metal Thermal Paste vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut