G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB vs G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB
G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB has the lower true latency of the two at 14.17 ns, against 14.29 ns for G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB. The site holds no current price for at least one of these, so what follows compares specifications alone.
| Specification | G.SkillRipjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB | G.SkillRipjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 32 | 32 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 4800 | 5600better |
| 34 | 40 | |
| True latency (ns) | 14.17better | 14.29 |
| Current best price | — | 698,75 €at Amazon.de · captured 2026-09-13 |
| Price per GB | — | 21,84 € |
No tracked price for G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB at the moment. Nothing has been captured for it that this page will stand behind, so its price cells stay empty rather than carrying a stale figure.
G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB vs G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB in detail
True latency
G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB is the lower-latency kit at 14.17 ns against 14.29 ns for G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB, 0.12 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. G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB runs 4800 MT/s at CL34; G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB runs 5600 MT/s at CL40.
Transfer rate
G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB carries the higher rating, 5600 MT/s to 4800 MT/s for G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB — 44800 MB/s per module against 38400 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
G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB ships as 2 × 16GB and G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB ships as 2 × 16GB — the same number of sticks on both sides, so they populate a board's slots the same way.
Lighting and timings
On lighting: G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB is published with no RGB lighting, and G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB is published with no RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple — the numbers after CAS — G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB is 34-34-34-76, and G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB is 40-40-40-89.
Which to buy
Without a tracked price for both, this page cannot say which to buy — the answer depends on cost, and cost is what is absent. What the specifications do say is that G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB has the lower true latency, 14.17 ns.
Common questions about this pair
- Is G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB faster than G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB?
- Yes, on true latency: 14.17 ns for G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB against 14.29 ns for G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB. G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB runs 4800 MT/s at CL34 and G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-5600 1x32GB runs 5600 MT/s at CL40, and the CAS numbers alone will not settle it — they count clock cycles, not time.
- Which of these two should I buy?
- Without a tracked price for both, this page cannot say which to buy — the answer depends on cost, and cost is what is absent. What the specifications do say is that G.Skill Ripjaws SO-DIMM DDR5-4800 2x16GB has the lower true latency, 14.17 ns.