G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB vs Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB
On true latency G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB comes out ahead: 8.89 ns, where Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB takes 10.00 ns. Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB is tracked at the lower price, so the two split the axes this page measures, one each.
| Specification | G.SKILLRipjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB | Silicon PowerXPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 16 | 16 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3600better | 3200 |
| 16 | 16 | |
| True latency (ns) | 8.89better | 10.00 |
| Current best price | £149.34at Amazon.co.uk · captured 2026-09-13 | £120.99betterat Amazon.co.uk · captured 2026-09-13 |
| Price per GB | £9.33 | £7.56better |
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB vs Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB in detail
True latency
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB is the lower-latency kit at 8.89 ns, against 10.00 ns for Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB — 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 2x8GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16; Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16.
Transfer rate
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB is rated 3600 MT/s against 3200 MT/s for Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB — 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 2x8GB is tracked at £149.34 — £9.33 per gigabyte — and Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB at £120.99, or £7.56. Both are 16GB kits, so the totals compare directly: Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB is £28.35 less than G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB. At £149.34, G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB is running 24% below its own 90-day median. At £120.99, Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB is running 3% below its own 90-day median.
Kit layout
G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB ships as 2 × 8GB and Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB ships as 2 × 8GB — 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 2x8GB does not have RGB lighting, and Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB does not have RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple, the numbers that follow CAS: G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB runs 16-19-19-39, and Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB runs 16-18-18-38.
Which to buy
Neither of these leads outright, so there is no single answer to give. Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB costs less at the prices tracked here; G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB has the lower true latency, 8.89 ns against 10.00 ns. Which of those two is worth more is a judgement about the machine and the budget, and this page does not make it for a reader.
Common questions about this pair
- Is G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB faster than Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB?
- G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB is, on true latency: 8.89 ns against 10.00 ns. G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL16 and Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB 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?
- Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB, at £120.99 against £149.34 — £28.35 apart at the same 16GB.
- Which of these two should I buy?
- Neither of these leads outright, so there is no single answer to give. Silicon Power XPOWER Turbine DDR4-3200 2x8GB costs less at the prices tracked here; G.Skill Ripjaws V DDR4-3600 2x8GB has the lower true latency, 8.89 ns against 10.00 ns. Which of those two is worth more is a judgement about the machine and the budget, and this page does not make it for a reader.