G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB
On true latency G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB comes out ahead: 8.00 ns, where G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB takes 8.89 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 32 | 32 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3600 | 4000better |
| 16 | 16 | |
| True latency (ns) | 8.89 | 8.00better |
| Current best price | 283,79 €at Amazon.es · captured 2026-09-13 | — |
| Price per GB | 8,87 € | — |
No tracked price for G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 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 V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB in detail
True latency
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB is the lower-latency kit at 8.00 ns against 8.89 ns for G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB, 0.89 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 V DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16; G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB runs 4000 MT/s at CL16.
Transfer rate
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB carries the higher rating, 4000 MT/s to 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. Both kits are published at CL16, so an identical count of cycles simply completes sooner at the higher clock, and 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 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 V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is published with no RGB lighting, and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB has RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple — the numbers after CAS — G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is 16-19-19-39, and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB publishes none.
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 Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB is the quicker at 8.00 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?
- Yes, on true latency: 8.00 ns for G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB against 8.89 ns for G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB. G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16 and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB runs 4000 MT/s at CL16, and the CAS numbers alone will not settle it — they count clock cycles, not 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 Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB is the quicker at 8.00 ns of true latency.