ARCTIC

ARCTIC MX-7

Ranked #3 in Thermal Paste

748 LP on the category ladder what's LP?

Igor's Lab calls it highly recommended and the pedigree is right, but it ranks below MX-4 and MX-6 here only because its long-term track record is the shortest of Arctic's line.

Consolidated from 8 cited sources across 6 outlets

Where the cited sources landed, as we read them

1 enthusiastic source
7 positive sources

See the sources

Check price

Pros & cons

✓ Arctic's newest flagship, well received by reviewers
✓ Igor's Lab sums it up as a highly recommended paste for demanding hardware
✓ Same formula pedigree as the rest of Arctic's line
✓ Roughly 3% better cooling than MX-6 and around 6% better than older options
✓ Easy to apply

✗ Shortest long-term track record of Arctic's line
✗ Only a small gain over MX-6 for a step up in cost
✗ The newest formula in the class with the least multi-year field history
✗ Higher cost than budget alternatives
✗ Shorter track record than MX-4 and MX-6.

The sources behind this ranking

We searched the web and YouTube for what has been published about this product, then read the articles, video transcripts and comments we found.

Evidence 5 articles and 3 video reviews

1 enthusiastic source

Tech4Gamers Article · Apr 2026

Arctic MX7 features a thicker, heavier formula this time, but does this formula actually perform well at lower temperatures in the real world, and is it worth the upgrade from your trusty tubes of Arctic MX6 and MX4? We’ll put this brand new Arctic MX-7 to the test to see if it’s truly the king of thermal pastes. Let’s get into it.

Read

7 positive sources

OC3D Article

Arctic’s MX-7 paste delivers everything that users could want from a new thermal paste. It provides lower CPU thermals than its predecessor, and its anti-pump-out characteristics make it better suited for long-term use. Given its similar pricing to MX-6, it is hard to see MX-7 as anything less than a straight-up upgrade. There are no real downsides to consider.

Read F Frame Chasers Frame Chasers · 38.9K subscribers · Jul 2026

And then Kryonaut Extreme would be B just because this one I know does lose its performance very quickly and MX-7 will last a bit longer. Let me just fix that to a big A.

Watch P

Prime Tech Support - Computer Repairs and IT Support Claudia Alvarez · reviewer · Feb 2026

Arctic MX-7 is a high-performance thermal paste with excellent thermal conductivity and easy application. Offering ~3% better cooling than MX-6 and ~6% better than MX-4. It's also affordable, making it an excellent choice for gamers on a budget. Learn more about Arctic MX-7 on the official Arctic website , or check current pricing and availability on Amazon .

Read F Forter FIX Forter FIX · 4.5K subscribers · Mar 2026

Arctic MX-7 is indeed a good paste. Temperatures are better than with its predecessors. It also seems to work well in direct die application. Definitely better than Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut.

Watch P

Performance Insights Article

MX-7 is a robustly formulated, highly filled oxide paste that shows off its thermal properties particularly well when it is pressed thinly. It is superior to its predecessors, close to the MX-6 New Formula and is currently the strongest performance class within the MX series.

Read F Forter FIX Forter FIX · 4.5K subscribers · Mar 2026

Arctic MX-7 is indeed a good paste. Temperatures are better than with its predecessors. It also seems to work well in direct die application. Definitely better than Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut.

Watch O

OC3D Article

If cooling matters to you, you will want to use MX-7 over MX-6. The results below speak for themselves. Both pastes have similar pricing, and MX-7 delivers better results.

Read

Frequently asked questions

It ranks #3 of 15 on our thermal paste tier list, in A tier. That placement draws on 8 cited sources across 6 outlets.

None of the 8 sources with a clear view is critical of it. Shortest long-term track record of Arctic's line. Only a small gain over MX-6 for a step up in cost. The newest formula in the class with the least multi-year field history. Higher cost than budget alternatives. Shorter track record than MX-4 and MX-6.