Given the significantly modified third mounting point on the CPU cooler, it is unclear whether the contact pressure is sufficient to prevent thermal throttling. Since I have two identical mini-PC units, I can easily compare the modified cooler with the original one.
Using the MX-4 thermal paste initially, I tested whether thermal throttling occurred, but that was not the case. Since we still live in an attic apartment and outdoor temperatures have exceeded 30°C in recent days, the measurements were largely unusable; when the intake air is easily 5°C warmer than the day before, the results are not meaningful. The maximum values were around 84°C with Cinebench R23 running a 30-minute multicore test.
Pressure image
Unfortunately, my countersunk screw design cannot replace the original contact pressure:
It’s good to see that the pressure point isn’t centered but has shifted slightly to the right, which indicates that more pressure would be needed in the modified corner.
I’ll leave my setup as is, since the temperatures haven’t deteriorated significantly. Still, this isn’t ideal: For a 65-watt model with a more powerful cooler, this setup wouldn’t really be an option. I think I’m just barely getting away with the aluminum bracket because the CPU is so energy-efficient (35 watts).
Next, I’ll replace the thermal paste on both EliteDesk 800 G6 DM units with Honeywell PTM7950 thermal pads so I won’t have to touch the coolers for as long as possible.