ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 has the lower true latency of the two at 9.47 ns, against 10.00 ns for ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB. No current price is tracked for at least one of the two, so the comparison below is of specifications rather than cost.
| Specification | ADATAXPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB | G.SkillTrident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 32 | 32 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3200 | 3800better |
| 16 | 18 | |
| True latency (ns) | 10.00 | 9.47better |
| Current best price | — | — |
| Price per GB | — | — |
Neither kit has a tracked price at the moment. Nothing has been captured that this page will stand behind, so the price rows stay empty rather than carrying a stale figure.
ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 in detail
True latency
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 is the lower-latency kit at 9.47 ns against 10.00 ns for ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB, 0.53 ns between them. That is the figure that reconciles the two spec sheets: a CAS number counts cycles, and cycles mean nothing apart from the rate they are counted at. ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16; G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 runs 3800 MT/s at CL18.
Transfer rate
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 carries the higher rating, 3800 MT/s to 3200 MT/s for ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB — 30400 MB/s per module against 25600 MB/s. That is peak transfer rate, not access time: a higher clock is reached by counting more cycles for each access, which is why the CAS numbers differ too and why the true latency above is the directly comparable figure.
Kit layout
ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB ships as 2 × 16GB and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 ships as 2 × 16GB — the same number of sticks on both sides, so they populate a board's slots the same way.
Lighting, timings and ECC
On lighting: ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB is published with no RGB lighting, and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 has RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple — the numbers after CAS — ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB is 16-18-18, and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 publishes none. On error correction: ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB is published without ECC, and the catalog does not state whether G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 has it. ECC is a board and CPU feature as much as a module one, so it is worth having only where the platform can use it.
Which to buy
At least one of these kits has no tracked price right now, so this page has no buying answer to give: which is worth more depends on what each costs, and that is exactly what is missing. On specifications alone, G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 has the lower true latency at 9.47 ns.
Common questions about this pair
- Is ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB faster than G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18?
- Yes, on true latency: 9.47 ns for G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 against 10.00 ns for ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB. ADATA XPG Gammix D10 DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16 and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 runs 3800 MT/s at CL18, and the CAS numbers alone will not settle it — they count clock cycles, not time.
- Which of these two should I buy?
- At least one of these kits has no tracked price right now, so this page has no buying answer to give: which is worth more depends on what each costs, and that is exactly what is missing. On specifications alone, G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB 3800 CL18 has the lower true latency at 9.47 ns.