Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

groupdiy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#21

Post by consp »

derefr wrote: post #15
buescher wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It annoys me too but part numbers are not a spec but more of a strong hint. The attitude of the industry is that it’s up to you to read data sheets carefully and test. Even for a 2N2222 or whatever.

Keeping in mind, though, that this is a jellybean part. You're supposed to be able to order "a" 5532 without specifying the supplier, because many vendors produce "a" 5532, and they're all the same. Different vendors' 5532s are supposed to be able to be treated as the same SKU — literally dumped into co-mingled stock in warehouses — with no ill consequence! (And yes, until TI's recent move, that was true of the 5532.…

The EEVBlog[1] video about this has a nice example of only a single chinese manufacturer offering the same stuff as TI now does, even with the same PNP instead of NPN topology. All the others are comparable to the original.

1: https://youtu.be/22ZmmZ67SMY

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#22

Post by rpaddock »

RachelF wrote: post #4

This sort of thing really annoys me. Part numbers are for use of engineers, not for the marketing dept. If you change the specs, change the part number.

I can see both sides of this. I really want different part numbers for the same reason you do.

However we deal with a lot of regulated products and to just open a case at one of the Government Paper-Pusher Regulators will cost us $5,000 to just change the part number. We are a small company and $5k hurts.

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#23

Post by vanderZwan »

rpaddock wrote: post #22
RachelF wrote: post #4

This sort of thing really annoys me. Part numbers are for use of engineers, not for the marketing dept. If you change the specs, change the part number.

I can see both sides of this. I really want different part numbers for the same reason you do. However we deal with a lot of regulated products and to just open a case at one of the Government Paper-Pusher Regulators will cost us $5,000 to just change the part number. We are a small company and $5k hurts.

I'm sure it does and you have my sympathies, but your situation would not be a reason to let Texas freakin' Instruments off the hook. They're not exactly "a small company", and I wouldn't be surprised if the $5k would have been cheaper than dealing with the response to this, so this just comes across as incompetence on their end.

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#24

Post by [deleted] »

rpaddock wrote: post #22
RachelF wrote: post #4

This sort of thing really annoys me. Part numbers are for use of engineers, not for the marketing dept. If you change the specs, change the part number.

I can see both sides of this. I really want different part numbers for the same reason you do. However we deal with a lot of regulated products and to just open a case at one of the Government Paper-Pusher Regulators will cost us $5,000 to just change the part number. We are a small company and $5k hurts.

[deleted]

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#26

Post by rsynnott »

rpaddock wrote: post #22
RachelF wrote: post #4

This sort of thing really annoys me. Part numbers are for use of engineers, not for the marketing dept. If you change the specs, change the part number.

I can see both sides of this. I really want different part numbers for the same reason you do. However we deal with a lot of regulated products and to just open a case at one of the Government Paper-Pusher Regulators will cost us $5,000 to just change the part number. We are a small company and $5k hurts.

... How do the "paper-pusher regulators" feel about getting a completely different part unannounced? I would guess unhappy, tbh. Like based on the thread it's not trivial changes.

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#27

Post by rbanffy »

RachelF wrote: post #4

This sort of thing really annoys me. Part numbers are for use of engineers, not for the marketing dept. If you change the specs, change the part number.

Kind of.

I want all 7400s to be four NAND gates, regardless of how they are implemented. As long as the results are correct, you might as well put a little ARM controller pretending to be four NAND gates.

For analog parts, I agree any change to the data sheet should receive at least a different suffix letter.

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#28

Post by rbanffy »

consp wrote: post #21
derefr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping in mind, though, that this is a jellybean part. You're supposed to be able to order "a" 5532 without specifying the supplier, because many vendors produce "a" 5532, and they're all the same. Different vendors' 5532s are supposed to be able to be treated as the same SKU — literally dumped into co-mingled stock in warehouses — with no ill consequence! (And yes, until TI's recent move, that was true of the 5532.…

The EEVBlog[1] video about this has a nice example of only a single chinese manufacturer offering the same stuff as TI now does, even with the same PNP instead of NPN topology. All the others are comparable to the original. 1: https://youtu.be/22ZmmZ67SMY

Would be nice to call it a 5532a or something like that.

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#29

Post by OptionOfT »

rbanffy wrote: post #27
RachelF wrote: post #4

This sort of thing really annoys me. Part numbers are for use of engineers, not for the marketing dept. If you change the specs, change the part number.

Kind of. I want all 7400s to be four NAND gates, regardless of how they are implemented. As long as the results are correct, you might as well put a little ARM controller pretending to be four NAND gates. For analog parts, I agree any change to the data sheet should receive at least a different suffix letter.

I disagree. At a certain moment you start to rely on behavior, knowingly or unknowingly.

These kind of changes might surface bugs that you never had.

https://xkcd.com/1172/

Re: New Texas Instruments 5532 chips are not the 5532s we’ve used for decades

#30

Post by topspin »

rsynnott wrote: post #25

Oh, wow, I was expecting from the title that, eh, maybe they changed the process or something, and someone was being a bit fussy. But yeah, no, different part.

Across the board TI is moving to new fabs, new fab processes and 300 mm wafers. So the old tooling is going away and they're adapting legacy designs to the new processes. This changes component behavior, particularly analog stuff, like these op amps.

That's all inevitable and has happened in the semiconductor business before. When it happens, manufacturers are forced to choose; obsolete old parts that can't be indistinguishably reproduced on the new node, or and sell substantially different components under existing SKUs, so they can keep booking orders from high volume customers without disruption.

In this case, the latter is happening. In all probability their high volume customers have already accounted for the PCN because TI told them it was coming years ago, back when the new fab buildout started and the lithography machines were first ordered.

Post reply on HN