0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm supposed to have two voltages coming out of two buck converters. My starting voltage is 12 V while the buck converters are supposed to output 5 V and 3.3 V respectfully.

Should I make the output voltage of the 5 V the V_in for the 3.3 V buck converter or should both have a V_in of 12 V?

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ To clarify, that would be better called cascade, not series (+ to -, + to -). And rather than "parallel" (only the inputs are in parallel), "same source". || Does your application require any power sequencing? What current ratings? Have you considered an LDO for 3.3V instead? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 26 at 8:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ There is no generic answer to such a generic situation. Please be more specific, like what buck chips you intend to use, and how much current each chip and their external components can provide, how much current the loads need, is there sequencing requirements, etc. What are the loads? \$\endgroup\$
    – Justme
    Commented Jan 26 at 8:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ The buck converters that will be used are L6982N50DR (for 5V with a current of up to 2A) and L6982N33DR (for 3.3V with a current of up to 1A. There is no sequencing requierments. The effiecency of the first buck converter was deduced to be around 92%. \$\endgroup\$
    – Hubert
    Commented Jan 26 at 9:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Hubert you provided the regulator chips' capabilities, but still the current draw/demand in your application is unknown. How much current will be drawn from 5V and 3.3.V individually? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 26 at 10:00

1 Answer 1

0
\$\begingroup\$

I think the question you mean to ask is, should I wire my 5 V and 3.3 V regulators in a cascade, or normally with a shared input? Image below to make this clear.enter image description here

Like all things electronics, this isn't a one rule for all applications.

You might use cascade in a situation where you need to guarantee that one supply starts after another (though enable signals or other methods might be preferred), you also might use it if your second regulator needed a lower voltage than the main input. Let's say your 3.3 V regulator had a maximum input of 7V, then you might cascade them as you were going to use the 5V regulator anyway.
Finally, this is often done with a switching regulator cascaded into a linear regulator, so you can get the low noise of a linear, but not burn as much power. Imagine you needed a linear regulator for 3.3, running this directly from the 12V input would have an efficiency of 3.3/12 = 27% or worse. Using a cascade, your efficiency is now (3.3/5) * 92% = 60%.

The cons of using a cascade, are a) you regulate twice, so you burn power twice. In this case, where you have two 92% efficient regulators, your 3.3 is produced at 92% x 92% = 84.6%
Also, you end up with a bigger power requirement for the first regulator, as it must source all the power for its voltage, and all the power to run the cascaded voltage.

All that being said, I would say using cascaded regulators is situational, not the default, and unless there's a specific reason why cascading provides an advantage, it's probably not the option to use.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am sure both regulators are not 92% efficient due to many reasons, like different input voltage, different putput voltage, different ratio of conversion, unknown load currents, and if the current is continuous or discontinuous. Both regulators are the versions that use "forced PWM" mode , which minimizes ripple instead of efficiency under light loads. If the current is low, efficiency can be much worse than 85%. \$\endgroup\$
    – Justme
    Commented Jan 26 at 12:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.