G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB has the lower true latency of the two at 8.89 ns, against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB. The lower tracked price belongs to Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB, which leaves each kit ahead on one axis and neither ahead on both.
| Specification | G.SKILLRipjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB | NetacShadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 32 | 32 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3600better | 3200 |
| 16 | 16 | |
| True latency (ns) | 8.89better | 10.00 |
| Current best price | £259.26at Amazon.co.uk · captured 2026-09-13 | £175.99betterat Amazon.co.uk · captured 2026-09-13 |
| Price per GB | £8.10 | £5.50better |
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB vs Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB in detail
True latency
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is the lower-latency kit at 8.89 ns, against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB — a difference of 1.11 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; Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16.
Transfer rate
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is rated 3600 MT/s against 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. Both kits are published at CL16, so the same count of cycles takes less time at the higher clock, and the true latency above is the directly comparable figure.
Price and tracked history
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is tracked at £259.26 — £8.10 per gigabyte — and Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB at £175.99, or £5.50. Both are 32GB kits, so the totals compare directly: Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB is £83.27 less than G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB. At £259.26, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is running 8% below its own 90-day median.
Kit layout
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB ships as 2 × 16GB and Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB 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 Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB does not have 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 Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 16-20-20-40.
Which to buy
There is no single answer here, because each kit leads on one axis. Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB 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 10.00 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 Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB?
- G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB is, on true latency: 8.89 ns against 10.00 ns. G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x16GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16 and Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16; the CAS numbers alone do not settle it, because they count clock cycles rather than time.
- Which one costs less?
- Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB, at £175.99 against £259.26 — £83.27 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. Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x16GB 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 10.00 ns. Which matters more depends on the build and the budget, and that is not a call this page can make.