Skip to main content

G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18

G.SKILLRipjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB32 GB · 3600 MT/s · 16 CL · 8.89 nsLeads on True latency
G.SkillTrident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL1832 GB · 4000 MT/s · 18 CL · 9.00 nsLeads on Speed
In short

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. The lower tracked price belongs to G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18, which leaves each kit ahead on one axis and neither ahead on both.

SpecificationG.SKILLRipjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GBG.SkillTrident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18
Capacity (GB)3232
Speed (MT/s)36004000better
1618
True latency (ns)8.89better9.00
Current best price283,79 €at Amazon.es · captured 2026-09-13283,52 €betterat Amazon.es · captured 2026-09-13
Price per GB8,87 €8,86 €better

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.

Price and tracked history

G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is tracked at 283,79 € — 8,87 € per gigabyte — and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 at 283,52 €, or 8,86 €. Both are 32GB kits, so the totals compare directly: G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is 0,27 € less than G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB. At 283,79 €, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is running 3% below its own 90-day median. At 283,52 €, G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is running 29% below its own 90-day median.

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

There is no single answer here, because each kit leads on one axis. G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is the cheaper at the prices tracked here, and G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB the quicker on true latency at 8.89 ns against 9.00 ns. Which matters more depends on the build and the budget, and that is not a call this page can make.

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 one costs less?
G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18, at 283,52 € against 283,79 € — 0,27 € apart at the same 32GB.
Which of these two should I buy?
There is no single answer here, because each kit leads on one axis. G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is the cheaper at the prices tracked here, and G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB the quicker on true latency at 8.89 ns against 9.00 ns. Which matters more depends on the build and the budget, and that is not a call this page can make.
How we track prices

Related comparisons