ICE1PCS02G vs TEA1716T/2,518: Component Comparison for PFC Applications

Quick verdict

For continuous conduction mode (CCM) PFC designs targeting mid-power offline supplies with through-hole assembly or retrofit needs, the ICE1PCS02G is the stronger candidate due to its explicit CCM control and well-defined switching frequency. Conversely, the TEA1716T/2,518 excels in discontinuous conduction mode (DCM) designs requiring surface-mount packaging, higher maximum operating temperature, and broad universal input voltage compatibility, making it preferable for compact, cost-sensitive consumer electronics.

Spec comparison table

SpecICE1PCS02GTEA1716T/2,518Notes
ModeContinuous Conduction (CCM)Discontinuous Conduction (DCM)CCM suits higher power and lower ripple; DCM simplifies control and EMI but less efficient at high load.
Switching frequency (typ)65 kHzNot specifiedKnown fixed switching frequency (ICE1PCS02G) eases EMI filtering design; TEA1716T frequency unspecified adds uncertainty.
Voltage supply10.2 V – 21 V70 VAC – 276 VACTEA1716T supports universal mains input range directly; ICE1PCS02G requires external supply voltage regulation.
Current startup100 µANot specifiedLow startup current in ICE1PCS02G reduces power loss during startup and standby operation.
Operating temperature range-40°C to 125°C-40°C to 150°CTEA1716T supports 25°C higher maximum temperature, beneficial for thermally constrained designs.
Mounting typeThrough HoleSurface MountThrough-hole (ICE1PCS02G) eases prototyping and repair; surface mount (TEA1716T) supports automated high-volume assembly.
Package case8-DIP (0.300”, 7.62 mm)24-SOIC (0.295”, 7.50 mm width)TEA1716T’s smaller, thinner SOIC package saves PCB space; ICE1PCS02G’s DIP package is bulkier but easier to handle.
QualificationNot specifiedNot specifiedNo clear advantage; check vendor-specific qualifications if relevant.

Design trade-offs

The ICE1PCS02G is tailored for CCM PFC implementations, which generally enable better power factor correction and lower input current ripple at moderate to high loads. Its fixed 65 kHz switching frequency simplifies EMI filter design and reduces audible noise risk. The downside is the necessity of a stable auxiliary supply voltage between 10.2 V and 21 V, which adds complexity to startup and standby circuits compared to the TEA1716T’s direct mains voltage operation.

In contrast, the TEA1716T/2,518 operates in DCM mode, which simplifies the control loop and often reduces the number of external components. DCM inherently results in higher peak currents and more switching losses at elevated loads but allows for simpler gate drive and control strategies. The TEA1716T’s ability to handle universal mains voltages (70 VAC to 276 VAC) without an external auxiliary supply makes it attractive for compact, low-cost designs. The higher maximum junction temperature rating (150°C) offers more thermal margin, which can reduce heatsink size or improve reliability in thermally constrained environments.

From a layout standpoint, the ICE1PCS02G’s through-hole PG-DIP-8 package is easier to hand-solder and prototype but occupies more PCB area and complicates automated assembly. Conversely, the TEA1716T’s 24-pin SOIC package demands tighter layout discipline and good thermal dissipation practices but enables smaller board footprint and higher assembly throughput.

Regarding cost, the TEA1716T’s surface-mount package and DCM operation generally translate to lower BoM costs in high volumes, especially since fewer external components are required for startup and voltage regulation. The ICE1PCS02G may incur additional costs due to the auxiliary supply and larger PCB real estate but could be justified in designs where CCM performance gains are critical.

Use-case fit

Choose ICE1PCS02G when…

Choose TEA1716T/2,518 when…

Drop-in compatibility

The two devices are not pin- or footprint-compatible. The ICE1PCS02G uses an 8-pin PG-DIP through-hole package, while the TEA1716T is a 24-pin SOIC surface-mount device. Beyond package differences, their control modes (CCM vs DCM), supply voltage requirements, and pin functions differ significantly. Substituting one for the other would require a complete redesign of the PCB, power stage, and firmware control logic. No direct drop-in replacement is possible without redesign.

Alternatives to consider