ADS8422IBPFBR vs ADS8401IPFBR

This in-depth comparison of the ADS8422IBPFBR and ADS8401IPFBR provides valuable insights into their specifications and key features. We cover important factors in detail, including RoHS compliance, REACH status, series, mounting style, package type, and other relevant characteristics. Presenting the differences side by side simplifies component selection, making it easier for you to select the best option for your specific application.

Technical review by ETEI Component Engineering Source: manufacturer documentation

Replacement verdict

Not a drop-in replacement

The ADS8422IBPFBR and ADS8401IPFBR are not drop-in replacements for one another. Although both are 16-bit successive-approximation analog-to-digital converters in a TQFP-48 package, they differ in resolution-critical architecture, sampling rate, analog input configuration, and digital interface, so a direct substitution is not feasible without a full board-level redesign and validation.

Different sampling rate Different analog input range Different digital interface Different reference architecture

Parts at a glance

Part A

ADS8422IBPFBR

Texas Instruments

Lifecycle
Active
Stock
1975 PCS
Series
Data Acquisition - Analog to Digital Converters (ADC)
Part B

ADS8401IPFBR

Texas Instruments

Lifecycle
Active
Stock
4893 PCS
Package
TQFP-48
Series
Data Acquisition - Analog to Digital Converters (ADC)

Key differences

Rows are prioritized by design impact. Highlighted values require attention during substitution.

Key electrical and mechanical differences between the two devices

Parameter ADS8422IBPFBR ADS8401IPFBR Why it matters
Resolution 16 bit 16 bit Both are 16-bit SAR ADCs, so nominal resolution is equivalent for substitutability.
Sampling Rate 4 MSPS 1.25 MSPS The ADS8422 offers over 3x the throughput, which is critical for high-speed acquisition systems.
Input Type Pseudo-differential (single-ended input with reference) Pseudo-differential Input configuration affects how the ADC interfaces with the analog front end and signal conditioning.
Supply Voltage (Analog) 5 V 5 V Matching analog supply simplifies power rail design when substituting parts.
Interface Parallel (byte/word) Parallel Both use a parallel interface, but timing and bus width details must be checked for drop-in compatibility.
Package 48-pin TQFP (PFB) 48-pin TQFP (PFB) Identical package and pin count allow the same PCB footprint, easing substitution.
Operating Temperature Range -40°C to +85°C -40°C to +85°C Equivalent industrial temperature range supports use in the same environments.
INL (Integral Nonlinearity) ±1.5 LSB (typ) ±1.5 LSB (typ) Similar linearity performance means comparable accuracy in measurement applications.
Power Consumption ~155 mW (typ) ~110 mW (typ) Lower power in the ADS8401 may benefit thermally constrained or battery-powered designs.

Need help validating a replacement?

Send your BOM and application constraints for technical and sourcing review.

Full specification comparison

Use manufacturer datasheets as the final authority.

Specification ADS8422IBPFBR ADS8401IPFBR
Supplier - Texas Instruments,Rochester Electronics, LLC
Series microPOWER™ microPOWER™
Part Status Active Obsolete
Number of Bits 16 16
Sampling Rate(Per Second) - 1.25M
Number of Inputs 1 1
Input Type Differential Differential
Data Interface Parallel Parallel
Configuration S/H-ADC S/H-ADC
Ratio - S / H: ADC 1:1 1:1
Number of A/D Converters - 1
Architecture SAR SAR
Reference Type External, Internal External, Internal
Voltage - Supply, Analog 5V 5V
Voltage - Supply, Digital 2.7V ~ 5.25V 2.95V ~ 5.25V
Operating Temperature -40°C ~ 85°C -40°C ~ 85°C
Base Product Number ADS8422 -
Sampling Rate (Per Second) 4M -
Number of A / D Converters 1 -
Mounting Type Surface Mount -
Packaging Tape & Reel (TR) -

Frequently asked questions

What are the key differences between the ADS8422IBPFBR and ADS8401IPFBR?

The ADS8422IBPFBR is a 16-bit, 4 MSPS pseudo-differential SAR ADC with a parallel interface, while the ADS8401IPFBR is a 16-bit, 1.25 MSPS fully differential SAR ADC with a parallel interface. The ADS8422 offers a higher sampling rate and pseudo-differential input configuration, whereas the ADS8401 provides a fully differential input architecture at a lower maximum throughput rate.

Are the ADS8422IBPFBR and ADS8401IPFBR pin-compatible?

Both devices are offered in a 48-pin TQFP package (PFB suffix), but pin compatibility cannot be assumed solely from package type. The pin functions and configuration must be verified against the respective manufacturer datasheets, as the input architecture and internal reference options differ between the two devices.

What is the maximum sampling rate of each device?

The ADS8422IBPFBR supports a maximum sampling rate of 4 MSPS. The ADS8401IPFBR supports a maximum sampling rate of 1.25 MSPS. The ADS8422 therefore provides more than three times the throughput of the ADS8401.

What input configuration does each ADC use?

The ADS8422IBPFBR uses a pseudo-differential input configuration, where the negative input is typically tied to a fixed reference level. The ADS8401IPFBR uses a fully differential input configuration, which provides improved common-mode noise rejection and better performance in differential signal chain designs.

Do both devices operate from the same supply voltage?

Both the ADS8422IBPFBR and ADS8401IPFBR operate from a 5 V analog supply with a separate digital supply. Designers should confirm the exact supply rail requirements and tolerances in the respective manufacturer datasheets, as the internal reference and digital I/O configurations may impose additional constraints.

What interface do these ADCs provide to a host processor?

Both the ADS8422IBPFBR and ADS8401IPFBR provide a parallel digital output interface for connection to a host processor or FPGA. The ADS8422, with its higher 4 MSPS throughput, requires a correspondingly higher data bus bandwidth than the ADS8401 at 1.25 MSPS.

Can the ADS8401IPFBR be used as a drop-in replacement for the ADS8422IBPFBR?

No. The two devices differ in maximum sampling rate (1.25 MSPS vs. 4 MSPS) and input architecture (fully differential vs. pseudo-differential). A drop-in replacement would require validation of timing, input drive requirements, and PCB layout against the target design, and the lower throughput of the ADS8401 would not meet applications requiring 4 MSPS.