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. G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is tracked at the lower price as well, so it leads on both axes this page measures.
| 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 | £259.26betterat Amazon.co.uk · captured 2026-09-13 | £308.05at Amazon.co.uk · captured 2026-09-13 |
| Price per GB | £8.10better | £9.63 |
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 £259.26 — £8.10 per gigabyte — and G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 at £308.05, or £9.63. Both are 32GB kits, so the totals compare directly: G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is £48.79 less than G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18. At £259.26, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is running 8% below its own 90-day median. At £308.05, G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 is running 3% 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
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB leads G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 on both of the axes this page measures: the lower true latency, 8.89 ns against 9.00 ns, and the lower price of the two at what this site has tracked.
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 Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB, at £259.26 against £308.05 — £48.79 apart at the same 32GB.
- Which of these two should I buy?
- G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB leads G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-4000 2x16GB CL18 on both of the axes this page measures: the lower true latency, 8.89 ns against 9.00 ns, and the lower price of the two at what this site has tracked.