How good is actually Intel Boxed heatsink thermal pads?

[archiver]

When running E6550 with 3rd party white thermal grease the CPU runs at approx 32C and 850RPM, but when using Intel Boxed heater with original thermal pads cooler RPM is 1005.

Can't test anymore right now ... as I've run short of thermal pads...
There may be more variables, why I can't make any final conclusions.

Can anyone add comments?
Are Intel thermal pads really so poorly performing?

[cmthomson]

Relative to aftermarket TIM such as AS5, yes, the stock Intel HSF TIM performs poorly. On the other hand, its installation is foolproof, which is a huge plus for a consumer product.

[porkchop]

i think pads are great for naked chips because they provide a certain amount of protection, but all modern cpus have the aluminum cover now so i'd opt for a 3rd party thermal paste for better performance.

i never used my stock heatsink so the thermal paste is still in place, i figured that i could get a little more for it when i eventually upgrade

heres a pretty good test http://www.silentpcreview.com/news789.html

[CallMeJoe]

Intel's stock thermal pad is used because it is as close as you can get to foolproof, not because it is a great thermal conductor. No thermal interface material is as good as direct metal-to-metal contact. The Intel IHS and stock heatsink base are rarely really flat, much less smooth, so something is needed to fill the air gap. Thermal pastes can be superior in performance because they can be applied in a much thinner layer than the pad, with a correspondingly lower thermal resistance.

[Elixer]

In my experience, using thermal paste improves processor temperatures by 2-5C, though occasionally you end up with a bad interface. I have seen bad connections with the thermal pads, like athlons running at 70C at idle, etc.