Chip vs Chip

CC2642R vs CC2652R

<\/script>\n
'; }, get iframeSnippet() { const domain = '{ SITE_DOMAIN }'; const type = '{ embed_type }'; const slug = '{ embed_slug }'; return ''; }, get activeSnippet() { return this.method === 'script' ? this.scriptSnippet : this.iframeSnippet; }, copySnippet() { navigator.clipboard.writeText(this.activeSnippet).then(() => { this.copied = true; setTimeout(() => { this.copied = false; }, 2000); }); } }" @keydown.escape.window="open = false" @click.outside="open = false">

Embed This Widget

Theme


      
    


    
    

      Widget powered by
      .
      Free, no account required.
    

  




    
    
Side-by-side comparison of CC2642R and CC2652R BLE SoCs.

    
    

      
    

  


  
  
  

    
      

        A
        
CC2642R

      

      

    
    
      

        B
        
CC2652R

      

      

    
  

  

  
  

  






  
  

    
CC2642R vs CC2652R: BLE-Only Ultra-Low-Power vs Multi-Protocol Matter Node


The CC2642R and CC2652R are siblings in Texas Instruments' SimpleLink wireless MCU family, sharing the same Cortex-M4F application core and Sensor Controller architecture, but differing critically in radio protocol support. CC2642R is BLE 5.2 only; CC2652R adds Thread, Zigbee, 6LoWPAN, and proprietary 15.4 protocols — making it TI's multi-protocol Matter-ready chip.




Overview


CC2642R is TI's Cortex-M4F BLE 5.2 SoC with 352 KB Flash, 80 KB RAM, a dedicated Sensor Controller Engine (SCE) for autonomous sensor acquisition, and an ultra-low standby current of ~1.4 µA. Its radio stack is optimized exclusively for BLE — a focused, efficient design for devices that only need Bluetooth connectivity.


CC2652R extends the same platform with a dual-protocol radio architecture capable of running BLE 5.2 and IEEE 802.15.4 (Thread, Zigbee 3.0) concurrently via TI's dynamic multi-protocol manager (DMPM). It has the same 352 KB Flash, 80 KB RAM, and Sensor Controller, with a BLE standby current of ~1 µA and 802.15.4 standby at ~1.3 µA.




Key Differences


    

  • Protocol support: CC2642R supports BLE 5.2 only; CC2652R adds Thread, Zigbee 3.0, 6LoWPAN, and IEEE 802.15.4 proprietary.
    • 

  • Matter support: CC2652R supports Matter over Thread; CC2642R does not support Thread.
    • 

  • Radio architecture: CC2652R has a more capable radio CPU handling both BLE and 15.4; CC2642R's radio is optimized solely for BLE.
    • 

  • Power consumption: Nearly identical — CC2642R ~1.4 µA standby; CC2652R ~1–1.3 µA depending on active protocol. The multi-protocol overhead is minimal in sleep.
    • 

  • Application CPU: Both use the same 48 MHz Cortex-M4F application core with FPU and the same Sensor Controller Engine.
    • 

  • Memory: Identical on both — 352 KB Flash, 80 KB RAM.
    • 

  • Cost: CC2642R is typically lower cost due to simpler radio design — relevant for high-volume BLE-only applications.
    • 

  • Ecosystem: Both use TI's SimpleLink SDK, Code Composer Studio, and SysConfig. CC2652R additionally supports TI's Thread and Zigbee stack SDKs.
    • 





Use Cases


Choose CC2642R for BLE-only applications — fitness sensors, medical wearables, industrial Bluetooth beacons, smart locks (BLE-only), and high-volume consumer BLE devices where the extra protocol overhead of CC2652R adds unnecessary cost and complexity.


Choose CC2652R for smart home devices joining Zigbee or Thread networks, Matter-over-Thread end-nodes (smart plugs, sensors, switches), multi-protocol gateways that bridge BLE and Zigbee, and any product that may need IEEE 802.15.4 support now or in a future product revision.




Verdict


If your product is BLE-only today and in all future variants, CC2642R is the more cost-efficient choice with a slightly simpler software stack. If there is any chance of adding Thread, Zigbee, or Matter support, or if the product already requires multi-protocol operation, CC2652R is the correct investment — it adds minimal power overhead and uses the same development tools. In the Matter era, CC2652R is often the better default for new designs.

  

  

  
  

  
  

    




  
자주 묻는 질문


  

    
    

      
      

        
Our comparisons use verified datasheet specifications to create side-by-side tables. Each comparison includes a verdict explaining when to choose each option based on your project requirements.