G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18
On true latency G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB comes out ahead: 8.89 ns, where G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 takes 9.00 ns. At least one of the two has no tracked price right now, so what follows compares specifications rather than cost.
| Specification | G.SKILLRipjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB | G.SkillTrident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 32 | 32 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3600 | 4000better |
| 16 | 18 | |
| True latency (ns) | 8.89better | 9.00 |
| 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.
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 in detail
True latency
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is the lower-latency kit at 8.89 ns, against 9.00 ns for G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 — a difference of 0.11 ns. That figure is what reconciles the two spec sheets: CAS latency counts clock cycles, so it only means something next to the clock it counts. G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16; G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 runs 4000 MT/s at CL18.
Transfer rate
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is rated 4000 MT/s against 3600 MT/s for G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB — 32000 MB/s per module, against 28800 MB/s. That is peak transfer rate, not access time: reaching a higher clock costs more cycles on each access, which is why the CAS numbers differ too, and why the true latency above is the figure that compares directly.
Kit layout
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB ships as 2 × 16GB and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 ships as 2 × 16GB — the same number of sticks either way, so both populate a board's slots identically.
Lighting and timings
On the lighting question: G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB does not have RGB lighting, and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is published with RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple, the numbers that follow CAS: G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 16-19-19-39, and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 does not publish one.
Which to buy
The site holds no current price for at least one of these, so no buying answer follows: which is worth more turns on what each costs, and that figure is the one missing. On the specifications alone, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is the quicker at 8.89 ns of true latency.
Common questions about this pair
- Is G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB faster than G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18?
- G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is, on true latency: 8.89 ns against 9.00 ns. G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16 and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 runs 4000 MT/s at CL18; the CAS numbers alone do not settle it, because they count clock cycles rather than time.
- Which of these two should I buy?
- The site holds no current price for at least one of these, so no buying answer follows: which is worth more turns on what each costs, and that figure is the one missing. On the specifications alone, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is the quicker at 8.89 ns of true latency.