Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB vs TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB
On true latency TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB comes out ahead: 7.78 ns, where Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB takes 10.00 ns. No current price is tracked for at least one of the two, so the comparison below is of specifications rather than cost.
| Specification | NetacShadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB | TeamGroupT-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 32 | 32 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3200 | 3600better |
| 16 | 14 | |
| True latency (ns) | 10.00 | 7.78better |
| 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.
Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB vs TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB in detail
True latency
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB is the lower-latency kit at 7.78 ns against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB, 2.22 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. Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16; TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL14.
Transfer rate
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB carries the higher rating, 3600 MT/s to 3200 MT/s for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB — 28800 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
Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB ships as 2 × 16GB and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB ships as 2 × 16GB — the same number of sticks on both sides, so they populate a board's slots the same way.
Voltage
Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB is specified at 1.35 V and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB at 1.45 V. That is the supply each kit's published profile requests from the board.
Lighting and timings
On lighting: Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB is published with no RGB lighting, and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB is published with no RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple — the numbers after CAS — Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB is 16-20-20-40, and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB publishes none.
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, TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB has the lower true latency at 7.78 ns.
Common questions about this pair
- Is Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB faster than TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB?
- Yes, on true latency: 7.78 ns for TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB. Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16 and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL14, 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, TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x16GB has the lower true latency at 7.78 ns.