• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 18 subscribers
  • Views 3103 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

CC2592 vs CC2591

Enrico Migliore
Intellectual 690 points

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2591, CC2592, CC2538, CC2540, CC2590

Hi,


I compared the 2 range extenders: CC2592 and CC2591

At glance I can't see any difference.


Are there any differences between the two power amplifiers?

Thanks,

Enrico Migliore

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 39860 points

    CC2592 compared to CC2591 will give better performance in terms of sensitivity (when used with one of our radios), better stability against load mismatch, and lower harmonics emission. For new designs we strongly recommend CC2592

  • 0 in reply to Sverre
    Intellectual 690 points

    Hi,

    thank you for your answer.
    I'm gonna use the CC2592 with the CC2540F128 BLE.

    QUESTION 1

    Will I be able to control the output power of CC2592 from within CC2540F128 the and limit it to 10 dBm?

     

    Thanks,

    Enrico Migliore

  • 0 in reply to Enrico Migliore
    TI__Mastermind 39860 points

    Short answer is "yes".

    There is an app note on CC2538+CC2592 (www.ti.com/lit/swra447). From table 6 you see that +10 dBm is possible with CC2538 configured for TXPOWER = 0x62 or 0x58, which corresponds to -11 and -13 dBm out of CC2538 respectively. It is possible to configure CC2540 for the same output power levels.

  • 0 in reply to Enrico Migliore
    TI__Guru** 106705 points

    Hi Enrico,

    For BLE with maximum output power of 10 dBm I would rather recommend the CC2590 as this will give you lower current consumption. See this app-note for more information: http://www.ti.com/lit/an/swra422/swra422.pdf


    Also, note that the CC2540 can only be set to -23, -6, 0 or 4 dBm output power in the BLE stack.

    Cheers,

    Fredrik

  • 0 in reply to Fredrik K
    Intellectual 690 points

    Hi Fredrik,

    > I would rather recommend the CC2590 as this will give you lower current consumption.

    I'm designing a permanently connected equipment and not a battery powered equipment so current consumption is not a big problem. Thank you though for pointing that out.

    > Also, note that the CC2540 can only be set to -23, -6, 0 or 4 dBm output power in the BLE stack.

    That might be a problem because I need to pass the conducted emission tests at the connector.

    The only power setting that I can rely on is -6 dBm in order to get 10 dBm at the EMI receiver.

    Thanks,

    Enrico Migliore