XC7A75T-2CSG324C vs XC7A100T-2CSG324C: Artix-7 FPGA Comparison

ElecSuppliers Part Number ComparisonAug 17, 2026

The XC7A75T-2CSG324C and XC7A100T-2CSG324C are two AMD Xilinx Artix-7 FPGAs designed for programmable logic applications that require a balance of performance, power consumption, and device capacity.

Both devices use the -2 speed grade and the CSG324 package, making them particularly useful for direct capacity comparison. The main difference is the amount of FPGA resources available inside the device. The XC7A75T provides 75,520 logic cells, while the XC7A100T provides 101,440 logic cells.

What Is XC7A75T-2CSG324C?

The XC7A75T-2CSG324C is an Artix-7 FPGA with 75,520 logic cells and 210 user I/Os in the CSG324 package.

It provides approximately 3.87 Mbits of total RAM and operates with a 0.95 V to 1.05 V core supply range. The commercial temperature version is specified for 0°C to +85°C junction temperature.

The device is suitable for industrial control, communications, embedded processing, consumer electronics, image processing, and other applications where the XC7A50T class is too small but a larger FPGA is not necessary.

What Is XC7A100T-2CSG324C?

The XC7A100T-2CSG324C is a larger Artix-7 FPGA using the same CSG324 package.

It provides 101,440 logic cells, 210 user I/Os, and approximately 4.97 Mbits of total RAM. Like the XC7A75T version, it uses the -2 speed grade and commercial temperature grade.

The additional logic and memory make the XC7A100T a better fit for designs that are approaching the resource limits of the XC7A75T.

XC7A75T-2CSG324C vs XC7A100T-2CSG324C Specifications

The two devices have the same package, speed grade, I/O count, and temperature grade. The main difference is internal FPGA capacity.

What Is the Difference Between XC7A75T and XC7A100T?

The biggest difference is the number of available logic cells.

The XC7A75T has 75,520 logic cells, while the XC7A100T has 101,440 logic cells. This gives the XC7A100T roughly one-third more logic capacity.

The XC7A100T also provides more block RAM resources. Its total RAM capacity is approximately 4.97 Mbits compared with approximately 3.87 Mbits for the XC7A75T.

This additional capacity can be useful when a design contains more complex control logic, larger data buffers, multiple processing blocks, or additional communication functions.

XC7A75T vs XC7A100T I/O

One important point is that both devices provide 210 user I/Os in the CSG324 package.

Therefore, moving from XC7A75T-2CSG324C to XC7A100T-2CSG324C does not increase the number of external I/O connections.

The upgrade is mainly about internal FPGA resources.

If an existing design is limited by logic cells or memory, the XC7A100T provides additional capacity. If the limitation is the number of available I/O pins, changing to the XC7A100T in the same CSG324 package will not solve that limitation.

XC7A75T-2CSG324C vs XC7A100T-2CSG324C Speed Grade

Both devices use the -2 speed grade.

This is important because the comparison is primarily about device capacity rather than a difference in speed grade.

The XC7A100T does not automatically provide a higher speed grade than the XC7A75T. Instead, it provides a larger FPGA fabric within the same general package class.

For a design that already meets its timing requirements on the XC7A75T, moving to the XC7A100T may provide additional resource headroom without changing the selected speed grade.

Can XC7A100T-2CSG324C Replace XC7A75T-2CSG324C?

The XC7A100T-2CSG324C can be considered as an upgrade candidate for an XC7A75T design when additional FPGA resources are required.

Both parts use the CSG324 package and have 210 user I/Os, which can simplify a migration compared with moving to a completely different package.

However, engineers should still verify the complete pin assignment, power connections, I/O standards, timing constraints, configuration settings, and Vivado implementation results before using the larger device in production.

Can XC7A75T-2CSG324C Replace XC7A100T-2CSG324C?

The opposite substitution requires much more attention.

Because the XC7A75T has fewer logic cells and less internal RAM than the XC7A100T, an XC7A100T design may not fit into the smaller device.

If the original XC7A100T design uses only a small percentage of its available resources, the XC7A75T may still be worth evaluating.

The correct approach is to check the actual utilization report for LUTs, registers, block RAM, DSP resources, I/O, and other device resources.

XC7A75T-2CSG324C or XC7A100T-2CSG324C?

The XC7A75T-2CSG324C is a good choice when the application fits within its 75,520 logic cells and approximately 3.87 Mbits of RAM.

The XC7A100T-2CSG324C is better suited to designs that need additional logic and memory capacity.

Because both devices use the same CSG324 package and -2 speed grade, the decision is mainly determined by resource requirements rather than package or speed-grade differences.

For a new design, engineers should estimate future resource requirements rather than selecting a device based only on current utilization.

XC7A75T-2CSG324C vs XC7A100T-2CSG324C: Which Is Better?

Neither device is universally better.

The XC7A75T-2CSG324C provides sufficient resources for many medium-sized Artix-7 designs while maintaining the compact CSG324 package.

The XC7A100T-2CSG324C provides more logic cells and internal memory for larger or expanding designs.

If an existing XC7A75T design is approaching its resource limits, the XC7A100T is the more logical upgrade to investigate. If an XC7A100T design has substantial unused capacity, the XC7A75T may be worth evaluating as a smaller alternative.

The final choice should be based on actual FPGA resource utilization, timing requirements, I/O requirements, power considerations, and long-term availability.