This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

LM3464A: LED driver

Part Number: LM3464A
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LM3463, LM3464

Hi,

I am going to use this part for only one LED string with 22 LEDs in series with maximum 82.5V, by respect the max input voltage 95V.

I have some questions:

1. If I only use one channel and do not use the rest (left open the 3 other channels) would that be any issue in this case? 

2. What would be the efficiency?

3. Do you recommend this Part? It is apparently not new, and the chip is quite big!

4. Is there any alternative for this chip?

I found another part (LM3463) and it has 6 channels. Are the answer of above questions true for this part as well?

  • Hi Farhad,

    1. No there would not be any issue.

    2. Theoretically its efficiency will be higher than normal linear LED drivers due to its "Dynamic Headroom Control" feature.

    3. You can use this part if you can make sure your input voltage is always higher than your LED voltage (82.5V).

    4. LM3464 is another choice with 12V-80V input voltage range. However it does not fit your requirement.

    Above answer 1, 2, 3 also applies to LM3463.

    Best Regards,

    Steven

  • Hi Steven,

    Thank you so much, 

    Just last questions and then we can close this ticket.

    1. What is the minimum output voltage for the LEDs.

    2. The package of this chip is quite big, Is there any smaller size available?

    3. What is the market availability?

    4. For how long will this part remain available in the market before becoming obsolete?

    5. Is there any spice model available for this part to be able to simulate this part?

    Thanks in advance,

    Farhad

  • Hi Farhad,

    You are welcome.

    1. That depends on your input voltage. Input voltage = headroom voltage + LED voltage.

    2. Sorry but no.

    3. It is active now.

    4. Currently we do not have any plan to make it obsolete.

    5. Sorry but no.

    Best Regards,
    Steven