(*) Note that the Enzotech Stealth’s stock mounting system broke (as did the backup) and was replaced by a similar-in-function mounting system (floating mounting plate, threaded posts, thumbnuts and springs); frankly, the replacement mounting system is probably a better mounting system than the stock one. The floating mounting plate of the Enzotech Stealth really makes consistent mounting difficult.
For this, we’re looking at the seven MX-2 mounts and seven ATSG mounts and taking a weighted average of the deviation across mounts (grouped by TIM). What this chart is trying to show is how much variation in performance there is due to the mounting system and how the block mates to the IHS. Lower means performance is more consistent across mounts.
What the data tells us is that the Supreme HF Full-Ni rev3 (Easy Mount) is barely more consistent than the CPU-370 and CPU-360 despite having the advantage of capped thumbnuts for even pressure. I suspect an increase in mounting pressure would increase consistency as well as performance. As for rev2, it’s noticeably less consistent than the Easy Mount, despite having higher mounting pressure.
If we combine the results of Indigo Xtreme’s best mount, MX-2′s average mount, and ATSG’s average mount, we get this:
We can see pretty clearly the big lead the Supreme HF Full-Ni rev3 has over the pack with Indigo Xtreme, and then look left and see that lead disappear and nearly be the worst block with ATSG. In rev2 form, the Supreme HF Full-Ni has much flatter performance across TIM changes.
What does this say? The Supreme HF Full-Ni rev3 does not make great contact; a user stands to lose a lot of performance by not using a great TIM. The rev2, with its higher mounting pressure, makes noticeably better contact (in terms of thermal performance) than the Easy Mount version.
This is a new chart, an overall empirical view of mounting quality in regards to how to performs. It does not take into account subjective experience of using the mounting systems, just how it performs with regards to contact quality and consistency. The closer to the bottom left, the better it is in both quality and consistency. The block does have an impact on both scores, so it’s a not pure mounting system metric, but rather how the mounting system works with the block.
Empirically, the EK Supreme HF Full-Ni has two mounting systems that aren’t great. I have a feeling rev3 could be a little further south and west if mounting pressure were increased to rev2′s levels.