FPGA & adaptive SoC databook · online editionRev. 2026.10

GW1NSR-4C vs XC7S6

A comparison of the Gowin LittleBee GW1NSR-4C and the AMD Spartan-7 XC7S6 using the data from both vendors' selection guides.

Side-by-side specifications

GW1NSR-4CXC7S6
Vendor / familyGowin LittleBeeAMD Spartan-7
Logic (LUT4-equivalent)4,6086,003
LUTs as published4,608 LUT43,752 LUT6
Vendor logic figure— LC6,000 LC
DSP16 18×18 multipliers10 DSP slices
Block RAM0.2 Mb0.2 Mb
Large RAM——
Max. user I/O106100
TransceiversNoneNone
Hard PCI ExpressNoneNone
Hard processor1× Cortex-M3None
Process55 nm28 nm
Configuration memoryEmbedded flashSRAM
Packages33
Design toolGowin EDAAMD Vivado

Highlighted values are higher. Logic is compared in LUT4 equivalents; see how FPGA vendors count logic.

Key differences

The XC7S6 has about 30% more logic capacity (6K vs 4.6K LUT4 equivalents).

They use different logic architectures: the GW1NSR-4C is built from LUT4 and the XC7S6 from LUT6, so the raw LUT counts (4.6K vs 3.8K) are not directly comparable.

For arithmetic, the GW1NSR-4C has 16 18×18 multipliers against 10 DSP slices on the XC7S6.

The XC7S6 has more on-chip memory (0.2 Mb vs 0.2 Mb).

The GW1NSR-4C includes a hard Cortex-M3 processor, while the XC7S6 does not.

Configuration memory: embedded flash on the GW1NSR-4C, sram on the XC7S6.

The GW1NSR-4C is designed with Gowin EDA and the XC7S6 with AMD Vivado.

Full specifications

See the complete spec sheets with packages and grades: GW1NSR-4C (LittleBee) and XC7S6 (Spartan-7).