Consumercarts is reader-supported. Learn more
Arctic MX-5 vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut: Comparison
Arctic MX-5 and Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut separate most on thermal conductivity: Arctic MX-5 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-5 | Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut , Kryonaut |
| Thermal Conductivity | 8.5 W/mK-32% | 12.5 W/mK |
| Electrical Conductivity | Insulating | Insulating |
| Package Size | 2g, 4g, 8g, 20g | 1g / 5.55g / 11.1g tubes |
| Recommended Use | CPU/GPU/Console Coolers | High-end CPU/GPU (including overclocking) |
| Reapplication Interval | Not consistently published | 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-5 vs Wakefield Thermal (Wakefield-Vette) Wakefield Solutions PL-1-3-1016-H Thermal Pad
- Arctic MX-5 vs Rosewill RCX-TC001
- Alphacool Apex 2 Thermal Paste vs Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut
- Arctic MX-5 vs ID-Cooling Frost X45
- Arctic MX-5 vs Parker Chomerics THERM-A-GAP PAD 80
- Arctic MX-5 vs Phobya Thermal Pad Ultra 5W/mK