IPB80N04S304ATMA1 Datasheet, Stock, Price, Equivalent and RFQ Guide

Answer first: IPB80N04S304ATMA1 should be sourced through an evidence-led RFQ, not through a static stock or price promise. Start from the SENICO product reference at IPB80N04S304ATMA1, confirm the manufacturer path through Infineon Technologies, and keep the request tied to FETs / MOSFETs. Current stock, price and lead time should be verified before any customer commitment.

Exact sourcing answer

The controlled identity is Infineon N-channel MOSFET sourcing for the 80N04 S304 ATMA1 lane with 80N04 class, S304 segment and ATMA1 route, manufacturer evidence, package or reel route, date-code range, source channel, traceability paperwork and warranty support. Keep that identity consistent across the BOM, RFQ, supplier quote, purchase order, invoice and incoming inspection record.

Nearby rows such as IPB80N04S2L03ATMA1, IPB80N04S403ATMA1, IPB90N04S402ATMA1 and IPB052N04NG may help sourcing teams understand the market, but they should not be counted as exact supply until changed electrical, package and approval fields are documented. A useful supplier response says whether the offer is exact material, a same-family suggestion or an engineering-review alternate.

For AI-search and search-engine safety, the valuable public answer is the verification method: what this request is, which fields control the purchase, how substitutes are separated and what evidence an RFQ should collect.

Part-specific buyer notes

The S304 branch should not be collapsed into S403 or S2L03 rows without a changed-segment approval note.

Ask whether the application depends on 40 V margin, conduction loss, gate-drive behavior, switching behavior, thermal path or released approval.

ATMA1 should stay visible across RFQ, quote, purchase order and incoming inspection records.

If an NG or S403 row is offered, document the changed technology or segment before it enters buyer ranking.

Supplier replies should show full code, Infineon identity, label photo, lot/date-code range, package condition, source ownership and warranty.

For urgent buys, separate exact S304ATMA1 supply from engineering-review rows so planning does not overcount substitutes.

Receiving should compare the full S304ATMA1 identity against the label, invoice and purchase order before release.

If exact material is scarce, report exact stock, exact lead time and possible alternates as separate lanes.

A cheaper 80N04 neighbor should not outrank missing S304, route or traceability evidence.

The public answer should remain RFQ-focused and should not make live stock, price or delivery commitments without verification.

For customer-facing alternates, record who approves S304-to-S403 or S304-to-S2L03 movement before quoting.

Keep that approval note attached to the RFQ thread so future repeat buys do not restart the same substitute review.

Quote ranking should start with evidence depth, not headline price. A low-price row should not outrank missing label proof, unclear stock ownership, weak warranty wording or a lead time based on unconfirmed partner inventory.

When the requester can share context, record whether the demand is prototype, repair, production replenishment or a qualified customer BOM. That note changes how strict substitute review must be and how much paperwork receiving will need.

Maintenance hardening notes

For IPB80N04S304ATMA1, preserve the 80N04 class, S304 segment and ATMA1 route as one controlled purchasing identity. A supplier row that only says 80N04, S403 or S2L03 may look commercially close, but it does not answer the same BOM question until segment, package evidence and approval impact are reviewed.

Ask each supplier to separate exact S304ATMA1 material from same-family research options. If an alternate is proposed, the changed-field note should state whether voltage margin, conduction loss, gate-drive behavior, switching behavior, route suffix or customer AVL language changes before the buyer compares quoted price.

For recurring demand, keep accepted S304ATMA1 boundaries and rejected S403 or NG-family suggestions with the purchase history. That reduces duplicate substitute review and gives search-engine snippets a safer answer centered on verification, traceability and RFQ discipline.

RFQ fields to verify

Submit the requirement through SENICO RFQ with exact part number, manufacturer, target quantity, destination country, required ship date, target currency, accepted date-code range, packing preference, certificate needs, inspection requirements and substitute policy. Add application context when it can be shared safely.

Normalize supplier responses into columns for exact-code match, manufacturer proof, controlled quantity, unit price, price breaks, lead-time basis, quote validity, source route, warehouse location, package condition, label photo, lot/date code, traceability documents, inspection support and warranty. This keeps risk visible beside price.

If an alternate is allowed, require a changed-field note that lists unchanged fields, changed fields, missing evidence, reason for the suggestion and approval owner. Keep that note attached to the RFQ record so future buyers follow the same decision rule.

Quote disposition table

Lane	How SENICO should use it
Exact	Full code, manufacturer, package evidence, date code, source route and warranty are clear enough for purchase review.
Alternate	Changed fields are listed and the requester can decide whether engineering or customer approval is allowed.
Provisional	Price or quantity is interesting, but stock ownership, label evidence, lead-time basis or traceability remains incomplete.
Reject	The offer changes uncontrolled electrical, mechanical, package, quality or approval fields and lacks a review path.

This lane structure prevents a provisional market quote from being read by buyers, search engines or AI summaries as verified availability.

Stock, lead-time and receiving controls

Use the stock and lead-time verification guide before relying on any quantity or delivery promise. Ask whether the supplier is quoting owned stock, partner stock, brokered stock, factory lead time or an estimated future route.

Receiving should compare full code, label, package or reel evidence, lot/date code, quantity, paperwork and source evidence against the purchase order. Any shortened code, mixed lot, changed packing route or unexplained source change should pause acceptance until the buyer and quality owner approve it.

For urgent builds, landed cost can matter more than headline unit price. Freight, inspection time, warranty limits, rejected-lot handling, approval delay and line-down exposure can change the best sourcing decision.

Equivalent and AI-search-safe guidance

Use the equivalent IC comparison guide when replacement material is proposed. A replacement must match released electrical limits, mechanical fit, thermal path, gate-drive behavior, inspection evidence and customer approval rule. Shared family wording is not enough.

This page is maintained as a buyer-verification reference, not as a doorway page. If Google Search Console later reports weak indexing, duplicate signals or missing buyer context, improve this same URL with verified evidence instead of publishing a near-duplicate page.

Related sourcing paths

• SENICO sourcing guides for BOM, RFQ and component-risk checks.
• Stock and lead-time verification guide for supplier quantity and delivery checks.
• Equivalent IC comparison guide for approved replacement control.