• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Coracer's GPE-01 Graphene Pad for AM5 Achieves 130 W/m·K Conductivity

AleksandarK

AleksandarK

News Editor
Staff member
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
3,133 (1.10/day)
Coracer, a lesser-known Chinese accessories manufacturer, recently introduced a version of its GPE-01 graphene thermal pad specifically designed for AMD's AM5 processors. Until now, this pad has been compatible only with Intel's LGA 1851 and LGA 1700 sockets. The new AM5 model measures 32×32 mm, allowing it to cover the entire IHS without hanging over the edges. Thermal paste has long been the go-to option for filling the microscopic gap between CPU and cooler, but in recent years, enthusiasts have explored alternatives like liquid metal and pre-cut thermal pads. Graphene-based products have gained traction because graphene conducts heat exceptionally well. Coracer claims its GPE-01 combines graphene with silicon to achieve a thermal conductivity of 130 W/mK, which is about twice that of popular liquid metal compounds. An insulating layer around the graphene prevents any risk of shorting out the processor's circuits.

Coracer also asserts that the GPE-01 can maintain performance for up to ten years. Regular thermal paste tends to dry out and degrade over time, requiring reapplication every few years. A graphene pad like this could eliminate that chore until you swap out your CPU unless you keep the same system for over a decade. Interestingly, Coracer has almost no online footprint. Segotep, another Chinese brand, introduced a GPE-01 pad for Intel CPUs late last year, so it's unclear whether Coracer is a spin-off or if Segotep licensed the design. As of now, there's no word on pricing or availability for the AM5 version. The Intel-focused GPE-01 sells for around $15 on Taobao, which is in line with other premium pads. Without independent reviews, it's hard to know if Coracer's conductivity claim holds up in real-world testing, but graphene's reputation does offer some reason for cautious optimism. We tested a similar product, Thermal Grizzly's KryoSheet, with a conductivity of 7.5 W/m·K, so hopes are high for the GPE-01.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source
 
Will wait for independent reviews since the thermal conductivity figures provided by manufacturers aren't standardised and 130W/mK definitely sounds exaggerated. It's why both Noctua and Thermal Grizzly no longer provide a W/mK figure on their products as too many brands claim an inflated number. I've seen people claim these two companies are hiding their figures because they're overpriced bad products, but I still trust Noctua's and TG's well-earned reputation and they also do raise a valid point.

Links to Noctua and Thermal Grizzly answers on thermal conductivity:
Why doesn’t Noctua specify thermal conductivity or thermal resistance of NT-H1 and NT-H2?
Thermal Grizzly FAQ (see third last question)
 
huggi said:
Will wait for independent reviews since the thermal conductivity figures provided by manufacturers aren't standardised and 130W/mK definitely sounds exaggerated. It's why both Noctua and Thermal Grizzly no longer provide a W/mK figure on their products as too many brands claim an inflated number. I've seen people claim these two companies are hiding their figures because they're overpriced bad products, but I still trust Noctua's and TG's well-earned reputation and they also do raise a valid point.

Links to Noctua and Thermal Grizzly answers on thermal conductivity:
Why doesn’t Noctua specify thermal conductivity or thermal resistance of NT-H1 and NT-H2?
Thermal Grizzly FAQ (see third last question)
Click to expand...
This need 3rd party reviews.
 
Philaphlous said:
Chinese claims of 150W/m·K... Probably the same company that claims the 18650 battery cells with 20,000mAh capacity...
Click to expand...
No company, Chinese or any nationality, should be trusted at their word. This isn't a Chinese exclusive issue.

Makaveli said:
This need 3rd party reviews.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
R-T-B said:
No company, Chinese or any nationality, should be trusted at their word. This isn't a Chinese exclusive issue.
Click to expand...
Famous Chinese company NVidia with their entirely truthful claims of 5070 being a 4090 for 550 dollars.

Anyway, would be interesting to see this tested, though I still am rather “meh” on graphene pads. Makes sense for reviewers who often swap CPUs and coolers, but for anyone looking to set easily and forget a PTM pad would probably serve better.
 
Doesn't graphene have very high thermal conductivity within the planar structure but much worse when perpendicular to it?

The listed thermal conductivity might not even be a complete lie though still a useless number in practice.
 
I do want a conductive thermal paste replacement especially for am5. There are no SMD components near the cpu die, right?
 
There seems to be no review on the already existing thermal pads for Intel lga1700 or lga1851 :/
 
_roman_ said:
I do want a conductive thermal paste replacement especially for am5. There are no SMD components near the cpu die, right?
Click to expand...
There are, but AMD usually has some type of resin over everything except the dies to protect them. I delidded by 7950x and you'd have to actually try to damage the SMDs to damage them, unless AMD changed their approach with the 9000 series.
 
Last edited:
Philaphlous said:
Chinese claims of 150W/m·K... Probably the same company that claims the 18650 battery cells with 20,000mAh capacity...
Click to expand...
Why would it be the same company? These are two completely different areas. Battery producers don't usually make thermal interface material. Trying to connect the two is such a reach.
 
This would be cool if the application it was designed for could actually use the potential of it. The heat "issue" with AMD's chiplet design with their CPUs isn't a problem of moving heat from the IHS to the cooler's coldplate. The problem is moving heat from the core complex die(s) to the IHS. There's a reason why the SoC kicks in with thermal throttling before the CPU cooler even sees the heat. The CCDs have a surface area of 10mm^2, where each CCD has a max of eight cores. So CPUs with more than eight cores will have two CCDs. These CPUs are generating ~100-120W of heat per CCD, so that's ~100-120W generated on a surface area of 10mm^2, of course the CPU will immediately jump straight to its thermal limit and be throttled. This happens before the heat even gets moved to the IHS, so it didn't even have a chance to then move to the CPU cooler.

All of that is to say, it doesn't matter what TIM you use for AMD CPUs, as long as they're using the chiplet design (Threadripper and Epyc being exceptions), you'll have roughly the same performance with respect to heat transfer. The thermal conductivity values (knowing those are already inflated and also not really useful to the end user) mean nothing. Even if the TIM had a true thermal conductivity of 130W/mK, it would never transfer anywhere near that rate because the bottleneck occurs before heat even reaches the TIM. The bottleneck is the die size. It's even more evident if you delid and direct-die cool with liquid metal. You'll see the exact same range of temps whether you delidded with liquid metal or used the factory IHS with the most basic thermal paste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top