Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB vs TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB has the lower true latency of the two at 7.78 ns, against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB. At least one of the two has no tracked price right now, so what follows compares specifications rather than cost.
| Specification | NetacShadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB | TeamGroupT-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity (GB) | 16 | 16 |
| Speed (MT/s) | 3200 | 3600better |
| 16 | 14 | |
| True latency (ns) | 10.00 | 7.78better |
| Current best price | — | — |
| Price per GB | — | — |
Neither kit has a tracked price at the moment. Nothing has been captured that this page will stand behind, so the price rows stay empty rather than carrying a stale figure.
Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB vs TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB in detail
True latency
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB is the lower-latency kit at 7.78 ns against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB, 2.22 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. Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16; TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL14.
Transfer rate
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB carries the higher rating, 3600 MT/s to 3200 MT/s for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB — 28800 MB/s per module against 25600 MB/s. That is peak transfer rate, not access time: a higher clock is reached by counting more cycles for each access, which is why the CAS numbers differ too and why the true latency above is the directly comparable figure.
Kit layout
Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB ships as 2 × 8GB and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB ships as 2 × 8GB — the same number of sticks on both sides, so they populate a board's slots the same way.
Voltage
Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB is specified at 1.35 V and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB at 1.45 V. That is the supply each kit's published profile requests from the board.
Lighting and timings
On lighting: Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB is published with no RGB lighting, and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB is published with no RGB lighting. On the full timing tuple — the numbers after CAS — Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB is 16-20-20-40, and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB 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, TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB is the quicker at 7.78 ns of true latency.
Common questions about this pair
- Is Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB faster than TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB?
- Yes, on true latency: 7.78 ns for TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB against 10.00 ns for Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB. Netac Shadow II DDR4-3200 2x8GB runs 3200 MT/s at CL16 and TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB runs 3600 MT/s at CL14, 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, TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan Z DDR4-3600 2x8GB is the quicker at 7.78 ns of true latency.