Thank you for your post, it has been approved and we will respond as soon as possible.

Hi TKishi,

Thank you for reaching out.

Several factors compound into affecting the overall internal gate resistance including layout geometry, gate oxide thickness and dielectric properties, substrate and interlayer resistivity, and more at the die level. The internal gate resistance of the module is largely determined by the die layout and how many of which die are packaged in the module; more die in parallel in each switch position will result in a higher current carry capacity and a lower effective internal gate resistance.

With respect to the two products mentioned, the CAB425M12XM3 and the ECB2R1M12YM3L, there are two primary reasons for the difference; the first is that they target different application areas, the CAB425M12XM3 targets industrial applications and the ECB2R1M12YM3L targets automotive. The differences in what each application needs the modules to do will influence how the modules are optimized. The second, and likely most relevant in this module comparison, is that they are very different topologies. The CAB425M12XM3 is a half-bridge module, one or more MOSFET die in the top and bottom switch positions, and the ECB2R1M12YM3L is a six-pack (three-phase) meaning it has three half-bridges contained within; It’s basically three CAB425M12XM3s already in parallel together.

The internal gate resistance reported on the module datasheets is the effective RGI of the module, not the individual die; if you were to calculate the total resistance of three CAB425M12XM3s in parallel using the datasheet value, 1/((1/.2)+(1/1.2)+(1/1.2)) = 0.4, you would have roughly the same value as the ECB2R1M12YM3L.

I hope this was helpful; it’s really a matter of target application and packaging rather than whether one is better or that newer should mean better.

Please let us know if you have further questions.

Thank you.