EPF10K100EQC208-3 vs EPF10K100EQC208-1N Comparison
Detailed side-by-side comparison of EPF10K100EQC208-3 by Altera and EPF10K100EQC208-1N by Intel. Compare key specifications, electrical parameters, packaging, lifecycle status, pricing, and availability to determine the best component for your design requirements.
Intel
EPF10K100EQC208-1N - 100K Gate FLEX-10KE FPGA, 147 I/O, 208-PQFP | Intel
EPF10K100EQC208-1N β Last Time BuySpecification Comparison
| Parameter | EPF10K100EQC208-3 | EPF10K100EQC208-1N |
|---|---|---|
| Brand | Altera | Intel |
| Category | FPGA & CPLD | FPGA & CPLD |
| Lifecycle Status | Obsolete | Last_time_buy |
| Stock Status | In Stock | In Stock |
| Unit Price (USD) | $19.80 | $54.90 |
| Family | FLEX 10KE | FLEX 10K (SRAM-based FPGA with EAB) |
| Typical Gate Count | 100,000 gates | β |
| Logic Elements / Cells | 4,992 | β |
| Embedded Memory Bits | 49,152 bits | β |
| Logic Array Blocks (LABs) | 624 | β |
| User I/Os | 147 | 147 |
| Process Technology | 0.22 Β΅m CMOS | 0.42 um CMOS SRAM |
| Core Supply Voltage | 2.5 V (operating range 2.375 V to 2.625 V) | β |
| Propagation Delay | 0.6 ns | β |
| Internal Performance | 200 MHz | β |
| Speed Grade | -3 | -1 (faster bin) |
| Operating Temperature | 0 Β°C to 70 Β°C (Commercial) | 0 C to +70 C (Commercial) |
| Package | 208-BFQFP (PQFP), gull-wing | β |
| Pin Count | 208 | β |
| Mounting Type | Surface Mount | Surface Mount |
| Logic Family | CMOS, SRAM-based | β |
| Configuration | SRAM, volatile (requires external PROM) | β |
| RoHS Status | unknown | Compliant (lead-free, 'N' suffix) |
| Series | β | FLEX-10KE |
| Typical Gates | β | 100,000 gates |
| Logic Elements | β | 4,992 |
| Total RAM Bits | β | 49,152 bits |
| Number of Logic Array Blocks (LABs) | β | 624 |
| Supply Voltage - Core (VCCINT) | β | 2.375 V to 2.625 V |
| Propagation Delay (max) | β | 0.6 ns |
| Package / Case | β | 208-BFQFP / 208-PQFP |
| Supplier Device Package | β | 208-PQFP (28 x 28 mm) |
| Configuration Method | β | SRAM, serial or parallel |
| JTAG Support | β | Yes (IEEE 1149.1 boundary-scan) |