Chip vs Chip

CC2642R vs EFR32MG24

<\/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 EFR32MG24 BLE SoCs.

    
    

      
    

  


  
  
  

    
      

        A
        
CC2642R

      

      

    
    
      

        B
        
EFR32MG24

      

      

    
  

  

  
  

  






  
  

    
CC2642R vs EFR32MG24: BLE-Only Sensor Hub vs Multi-Protocol Matter Endpoint


The TI CC2642R and Silicon Labs EFR32MG24 both target battery-powered IoT endpoints but differ in protocol breadth and security architecture. CC2642R is a BLE 5.2 specialist with an autonomous Sensor Controller Engine. EFR32MG24 is Silicon Labs' premium multi-protocol SoC supporting BLE 5.3, Thread, and Zigbee 3.0 with Secure Vault High and a dedicated AI/ML hardware accelerator.




Overview


CC2642R is TI's Cortex-M4F BLE 5.2 SoC with 352 KB Flash, 80 KB RAM, Sensor Controller Engine for autonomous peripheral sampling, and ~1.4 µA standby. It is TI's flagship BLE-only endpoint chip for industrial and medical sensor nodes.


EFR32MG24 is Silicon Labs' Cortex-M33 multi-protocol SoC supporting BLE 5.3 + Thread + Zigbee 3.0 + Matter, with up to 1536 KB Flash, 256 KB RAM, Secure Vault High (the top tier of SiLabs security — PUF, anti-tamper, secure OTA, full device attestation), and a dedicated AI/ML accelerator. Deep sleep (EM2): ~1.4 µA.




Key Differences


    

  • Protocol support: EFR32MG24 supports BLE 5.3 + Thread + Zigbee + Matter; CC2642R supports BLE 5.2 only.
    • 

  • Matter: EFR32MG24 is a flagship Matter-over-Thread endpoint chip; CC2642R does not support Thread.
    • 

  • Security: EFR32MG24 Secure Vault High (highest tier) vs CC2642R hardware AES-128 (no PUF/attestation).
    • 

  • AI/ML: EFR32MG24 has a dedicated ML hardware accelerator; CC2642R has no ML hardware (M4F DSP only).
    • 

  • Sensor Controller: CC2642R's SCE autonomously samples sensors at ~0.6 µA; EFR32MG24 has no equivalent.
    • 

  • Memory: EFR32MG24 up to 1536 KB Flash + 256 KB RAM; CC2642R 352 KB Flash + 80 KB RAM.
    • 

  • BLE version: EFR32MG24 supports BLE 5.3 (vs CC2642R BLE 5.2) — newer LC3 codec and Auracast." data-category="LE Audio">LE Audio features.
    • 

  • Power: Both achieve ~1.4 µA EM2/deep sleep, but EFR32MG24's multi-protocol radio manager adds scheduling overhead during active periods.
    • 





Use Cases


Choose CC2642R for BLE-only sensor applications requiring autonomous Sensor Controller sampling — industrial monitors, medical wearable endpoints, environmental loggers — where BLE is the only required protocol and power efficiency is paramount.


Choose EFR32MG24 for Matter-over-Thread end-devices, Zigbee 3.0 smart home sensors, secure industrial IoT nodes requiring hardware attestation, and products where simultaneous BLE + Thread + Zigbee operation is a requirement.




Verdict


EFR32MG24 is the more capable chip overall — more memory, Secure Vault High, AI/ML hardware, BLE 5.3, and multi-protocol support — but CC2642R's Sensor Controller Engine remains uniquely powerful for autonomous sensor-driven applications. Choose CC2642R if BLE-only sensor acquisition dominates the design; choose EFR32MG24 if multi-protocol Matter/Thread/Zigbee support and/or hardware security certification are requirements.

  

  

  
  

  
  

    




  
Frequently Asked Questions


  

    
    

      
      

        
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.