OMO ElectronicOMO Electronic
Expand menu
Hello, Sign inMy Account
0 Cart

SIT2025BI-S3-28E-125.000000G

P1-P3P4-P6P7-P9P10-P12P13-P15
Rev. 1.5
Page 13 of 15
www.sitime.com
Silicon MEMS Outperforms Quartz
Silicon MEMS Outperforms Quartz
Best Reliability
Silicon is inherently more reliable than quartz. Unlike
quartz suppliers, SiTime has in-house MEMS and analog
CMOS expertise, which allows SiTime to develop the
most reliable products. Figure 1
shows a comparison with
quartz technology.
Why is SiTime Best in Class:
SiTime’s MEMS resonators are vacuum sealed using
an advanced EpiSeal™ process, which eliminates
foreign particles and improves long term aging and
reliability
World-class MEMS and CMOS design expertise
Figure 1. Reliability Comparison
[1]
Best Aging
Unlike quartz, MEMS oscillators have excellent long term
aging performance which is why every new SiTime product
specifies 10-year aging. A comparison is shown in Figure 2.
Why is SiTime Best in Class:
SiTime’s MEMS resonators are vacuum sealed using
an advanced EpiSeal process, which eliminates foreign
particles and improves long term aging and reliability
Inherently better immunity of electrostatically driven
MEMS resonator
Figure 2. Aging Comparison
[2]
Best Electro Magnetic Susceptibility (EMS)
SiTime’s oscillators in plastic packages are up to 54 times
more immune to external electromagnetic fields than quartz
oscillators as shown in Figure 3.
Why is SiTime Best in Class:
Internal differential architecture for best common
mode noise rejection
Electrostatically driven MEMS resonator is more
immune to EMS
Figure 3. Electro Magnetic Susceptibility (EMS)
[3]
Best Power Supply Noise Rejection
SiTime’s MEMS oscillators are more resilient against noise
on the power supply. A comparison is shown in Figure 4
.
Why is SiTime Best in Class:
On-chip regulators and internal differential architecture
for common mode noise rejection
Best analog CMOS design expertise
Figure 4. Power Supply Noise Rejection
[4]
SiTime MEMS vs. Quartz Aging
SiTime MEMS Oscillator Quartz Oscillator
10
8
8.0
SiTime
6
2X Better
4
3.0
3.5
2
1.5
0
1-Year
10-Year
Reliability (Million Hours)
SiTime
1,140
IDT
38
Epson
28
SiTime vs Quartz
Electro Magnetic Susceptibility (EMS)
- 30
- 39
- 40
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 45
- 50
-
60
SiTime
54X
Better
- 70
- 73
- 80
-
90
Kyocera Epson TXC CW SiLabs SiTime
Aging
(±PPM)
Average
Spurs
(dB)
SiTIme NDK Epson
Kyocera
Power Supply Noise Rejection
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
SiTime
1.0
3X Better
0.0
10 100 1,000
10,000
Power Supply Noise Frequency (kHz)
Additive
Integrated
Ph
ase
Jitter
per
mVp-p
Injected
Noise
(ps/mv
)
Rev. 1.5
Page 14 of 15
www.sitime.com
Silicon MEMS Outperforms Quartz
Best Vibration Robustness
High-vibration environments are all around us. All elec-
tronics, from handheld devices to enterprise servers and
storage systems are subject to vibration. Figure 5 shows
a comparison of vibration robustness.
Why is SiTime Best in Class:
The moving mass of SiTime’s MEMS resonators is
up to 3000 times smaller than quartz
Center-anchored MEMS resonator is the most
robust design
Figure 5. Vibration Robustness
[5]
Best Shock Robustness
SiTime’s oscillators can withstand at least 50,000 g shock.
They all maintain their electrical performance in operation
during shock events. A comparison with quartz devices is
shown in Figure 6
.
Why is SiTime Best in Class:
The moving mass of SiTime’s MEMS resonators
is up to 3000 times smaller than quartz
Center-anchored MEMS resonator is the most
robust design
Figure 6. Shock Robustness
[6]
Vibration
Sensitivity
(ppb/g)
Peak
Frequency
Deviation
(PPM)
SiTime TXC Epson Connor Winfield Kyocera SiLabs
Vibration Sensitivity vs. Frequency
100.00
10.00
1.00
SiTime
Up
to
30x
Better
0.10
10
100
1000
16
Differential XO Shock Robustness - 500 g
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Kyocera Epson TXC CW SiLabs SiTime
14.3
12.6
3.9
SiTime
Up
to
25x
Better
2.9
2.5
0.6
Vibration Frequency(Hz)
Rev. 1.5
Page 15 of 15
www.sitime.com
Silicon MEMS Outperforms Quartz
Notes:
1. Data Source: Reliability documents of named companies.
2. Data source: SiTime and quartz oscillator devices datasheets.
3. Test conditions for Electro Magnetic Susceptibility (EMS):
According to IEC EN61000-4.3 (Electromagnetic compatibility standard)
Field strength: 3V/m
Radiated signal modulation: AM 1 kHz at 80% depth
Carrier frequency scan: 80 MHz – 1 GHz in 1% steps
Antenna polarization: Vertical
DUT position: Center aligned to antenna
Devices used in this test:
SiTime, SiT9120AC-1D2-33E156.250000 - MEMS based - 156.25 MHz
Epson, EG-2102CA 156.2500M-PHPAL3 - SAW based - 156.25 MHz
TXC, BB-156.250MBE-T - 3rd Overtone quartz based - 156.25 MHz
Kyocera, KC7050T156.250P30E00 - SAW based - 156.25 MHz
Connor Winfield (CW), P123-156.25M - 3rd overtone quartz based - 156.25 MHz
SiLabs, Si590AB-BDG - 3rd overtone quartz based - 156.25 MHz
4. 50 mV pk-pk Sinusoidal voltage.
Devices used in this test:
SiTime, SiT8208AI-33-33E-25.000000, MEMS based - 25 MHz
NDK, NZ2523SB-25.6M - quartz based - 25.6 MHz
Kyocera, KC2016B25M0C1GE00 - quartz based - 25 MHz
Epson, SG-310SCF-25M0-MB3 - quartz based - 25 MHz
5. Devices used in this test:
same as EMS test stated in Note 3
6. Test conditions for shock test:
MIL-STD-883F Method 2002
Condition A: half sine wave shock pulse, 500-g, 1ms
Continuous frequency measurement in 100 μs gate time for 10 seconds
Devices used in this test:
same as EMS test stated in Note 3
7. Additional data, including setup and detailed results, is available upon request to qualified customers. Please contact productsupport@sitime.com.
P1-P3P4-P6P7-P9P10-P12P13-P15

SIT2025BI-S3-28E-125.000000G

Mfr. #:
Buy SIT2025BI-S3-28E-125.000000G
Manufacturer:
Description:
MEMS OSC XO 125.0000MHZ LVCMOS
Lifecycle:
New from this manufacturer.
Delivery:
DHL FedEx Ups TNT EMS
Payment:
T/T Paypal Visa MoneyGram Western Union

Products related to this Datasheet