Ok guys. This
is a round up of 17 different pastes on cpu's.
To sum it up:
Of the seventeen thermal pastes in this roundup, Tuniq’s TX-4 scored the highest. Its burn temperature was 3C cooler than Arctic Silver 5’s. Eleven pastes earn our Geek Tested & Approved badge: Tuniq TX-4 and TX-2, Shin-Etsu MicroSI X23-7783D, Prolimatek PK-1, Arctic Cooling MX-4 and MX-2, Noctual NT-H1, Xigmatek PTI-G4512, ZeroTherm ZT-100, Cooler Master ThermalFusion 400, and good old Arctic Silver 5. We’d give pride of place to Tuniq’s TX-2, Arctic Cooling’s MX-2, and Prolimatech’s PK-1, because they’re slightly cheaper than some of the other premiere thermal interface materials.
So does thermal paste matter? Yes—there’s a big difference between thermal pastes when running a CPU at full burn. There’s a big difference between a thermal interface material that’s good for overclocking and those that aren’t, but with eleven great thermal pastes to choose from, you can’t go wrong with one of them.
I personally use mx-2 because it is cheap and works really well. I used to use tx-2 but was unable to find any last time I bought paste. I do realize the question was for gpu's but I don't think it matters. After I applied Mx-2 it dropped me like 20c on my 7970 compared to stock, but I think that is mostly because saphire had about 1mm of paste in there.