EEVblog 1752 - WTF Texas Instruments BIG NE5532 CHANGES

[tszaboo]

Well, if I was them, I would've sold the old factory as-is. Just spin off the old factory, sell it together with the machines, make a new company. Call it, IDK, Burr Brown or something.
And call your new opamp NE5532T or whatever.

The old TI's SFAB factory won't be retired after all. Rumor has it it's getting loaded onto Starship Flight 19 and sent to space as a proof of concept.

Sure, and they will bring it to the launch pad on the back seat of a Fiat 500.

[Alex Nikitin]

Rumor is that the engine control electronics on Blue Origin rocket used some late TI chips…

Cheers

Alex

[Yansi]

As they are kind of ending the old process, other part should be effected too from changes. It looks like this also applies to the gold old uA741:
The new 2026, rev. H datasheet gives quite some changes:
no more offset adjust - though some pictures still show it, there are other oddities with the bias current
much lower supply current (0.13 mA compared to 1.7 mA typ)
much lower input bias , higher input resistance
near RR output swing
80 mA typ output current
+-18 V supply only   -- AFAIR they had a +-22 and +-18 V max version. At least for the LM741 they have.
--> not sure if this is still a BJT based part. Most specs are an improvement, but some could still break old designs.
     the list the TLV9301 as a similar part and from the specs - it could be a similar CMOS part.

On the positive side there is still the LM741 listed with more the original specs. The question may be for how long.

I'll post the PCN in another thread.

Probably good to note output resistance spec has gone from 75 ohm to 575 ohm.

[Alex Nikitin]

As they are kind of ending the old process, other part should be effected too from changes. It looks like this also applies to the gold old uA741:
The new 2026, rev. H datasheet gives quite some changes:
no more offset adjust - though some pictures still show it, there are other oddities with the bias current
much lower supply current (0.13 mA compared to 1.7 mA typ)
much lower input bias , higher input resistance
near RR output swing
80 mA typ output current
+-18 V supply only   -- AFAIR they had a +-22 and +-18 V max version. At least for the LM741 they have.
--> not sure if this is still a BJT based part. Most specs are an improvement, but some could still break old designs.
     the list the TLV9301 as a similar part and from the specs - it could be a similar CMOS part.

On the positive side there is still the LM741 listed with more the original specs. The question may be for how long.

I'll post the PCN in another thread.

Probably good to note output resistance spec has gone from 75 ohm to 575 ohm.

The only point which is worth noting is that it is a completely different device falsely named uA741.

Cheers

Alex

[jonovid]

how hard can it be  to chance the part number or give it a new version or prefix.

[Ipswich]

If you read the datasheet specifically section 6.3.1 and 6.3.3  you will find nothing has changed at all.

[Just Brew It!]

If you read the datasheet specifically section 6.3.1 and 6.3.3  you will find nothing has changed at all.

Those sections contradict the tables on page 4.

[Agent24]

how hard can it be  to chance the part number or give it a new version or prefix.

Maybe the name Texas Instruments gives it away; it's all run by cowboys.

[Agent24]

The SO20 case is a lot more common than SO18. Though more material, it could be the slightly cheaper option and for a new design the extra pins improve heat sinking. At least they gave it a new name as the change in the dimensions is obvious and a bit more difficult to fool the customers on this. It should be just a new case option.

I wondered that too, but there's no mention of using the pins for heatsinking in the datasheet, and the suggested PCB layout doesn't show anything related either.

I can't really see how using a 20-pin package vs an 18-pin package would help with costs, they're already going to have the appropriate tooling/configs and lead-frames etc already there for other 18-pin parts they manufacture, in a big production run what's the difference?

[iMo]

The SO20 case is a lot more common than SO18. Though more material, it could be the slightly cheaper option and for a new design the extra pins improve heat sinking. At least they gave it a new name as the change in the dimensions is obvious and a bit more difficult to fool the customers on this. It should be just a new case option.

I wondered that too, but there's no mention of using the pins for heatsinking in the datasheet, and the suggested PCB layout doesn't show anything related either.

I can't really see how using a 20-pin package vs an 18-pin package would help with costs, they're already going to have the appropriate tooling/configs and lead-frames etc already there for other 18-pin parts they manufacture, in a big production run what's the difference?

More pins decreases the thermal resistance of the package usually. So it helps with thermals per-se.
20pins package might be a managerial decision - when we produce 200 parts in 20pin and 30 parts in 18 pin packages (for example) let us move all to the 20pin package and let us get rid of 18pin tooling.
The less tooling the less maintenance and upgrade costs.

[golden_labels]

But what is the problem? The 20 pin “version” is using a different designation. ULN2803C instead of ULN2803A, and ULN2803A remains available from other manufacturers. TI simply stopped producing a part — not the first one. That’s all.

The situation is diametrally different from silently changing specs of a jellybean part in a significant way, selling it under the same part number as before, worse being that it’s now incompatible with the same part number from other manufacturers, and — on top of all — apparently it’s being another chip relabelled.


Tengentially, that reminds me of Toshiba changing 4013 truth table.

[Agent24]

But what is the problem? The 20 pin “version” is using a different designation. ULN2803C instead of ULN2803A, and ULN2803A remains available from other manufacturers. TI simply stopped producing a part — not the first one. That’s all.

Sure, it's good they made a different variant to show that it's different, but the decision to make it different and discontinue the old one makes no sense, their explanation for why they did it makes no sense, and can potentially cause problems as someone else mentioned earlier, if your PCB is already produced and there is no space to use the new 20-pin variant.

Yes you could go to another manufacturer but can you guarantee their part will work the same in your circuit?

If it's because of cost cutting, they should just state that, instead of some bizarre line about "the new 20-pin version is more compatible with similar 18-pin chips".... umm what?

[golden_labels]

If it's because of cost cutting, they should just state that, instead of some bizarre line about "the new 20-pin version is more compatible with similar 18-pin chips".... umm what?

There is no such line in TI’s statement.

They don’t claim any “more compatibility” and in fact warn about them not being compatible: “The replacement device is a 20-pin SOIC (DW) package which is not pin to pin to the 18-pin SOIC (DW) package” (from PCN, ephasis added). In the table below both rows say “No” in the “Pin to Pin Match” column too.

There is a note that “if a 20-pin PCB footprint is used” then “(t)he 20-pin SOIC (DW) package replacement device can be used
interchangeably with 18-pin devices”. That means: with 20-pin design both versions can be used. Not the other way around.

The reason is also clearly stated: they withdraw from assembling 18-pin SOIC packages.


It feels like Bzzz’s post entirely determined your interpretation of facts, including your brain inserting words and silently swapping objects.

[Agent24]

If it's because of cost cutting, they should just state that, instead of some bizarre line about "the new 20-pin version is more compatible with similar 18-pin chips".... umm what?

There is no such line in TI’s statement.
They don’t claim any “more compatibility” and in fact warn about them not being compatible
The reason is also clearly stated: they withdraw from assembling 18-pin SOIC packages.
It feels like Bzzz’s post entirely determined your interpretation of facts, including your brain inserting words and silently swapping objects.

Oops! My mistake indeed, I must have skipped over the PCN and instead was looking mostly at this link here: https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1134115/faq-uln2803c-uln2803adwr-uln2803cdwr-creating-a-common-pcb-footprint-for-18-pin-and-20-pin-8ch-darlington-transistor-arrays-devices which doesn't mention the reason behind the change and does come across as a bit strange, if taken out of context to the PCN.

Still, I would have thought there to be plenty of 18-pin SOIC devices in production, that withdrawing an entire package type would be illogical. I suppose then that other parts may end up sprouting extra NC pins, or being obsoleted entirely?

[Jeroen3]

Ti is purchasing Silabs and they are also dropping all SOIC parts.

[golden_labels]

Still, I would have thought there to be plenty of 18-pin SOIC devices in production, that withdrawing an entire package type would be illogical. I suppose then that other parts may end up sprouting extra NC pins, or being obsoleted entirely?

A few PWM chips inherited from Unitrode, the entire family nearing EOL. Like UC2851, UC3851 or UC3526. I don’t think Texas Instruments has any other SOIC-18 packages.

[ballsystemlord]

Isn't TI an american company? Fits exactly into my playbook for the USA these days.
Seems, the new way of thinking is "Who cares about contracts, agreements, or specs? Let's just do it totally different and look if we can get away with it."
This whole story proves my feeling right, that USA is no longer reliable in any way.

Maybe we should find a label, warning about reduced quality and reliability? Let's say  "Made in the USA"? 
Oh, this label already exists, you say? Well, fine - let's keep it that way!

Umm, maybe you didn't notice, but the TI product change notification says that it's now being made in Malaysia. So there are people in the US making the bad choices, but it's not Made in USA. The same can be said for countless other US companies.

[tooki]

Isn't TI an american company? Fits exactly into my playbook for the USA these days.
Seems, the new way of thinking is "Who cares about contracts, agreements, or specs? Let's just do it totally different and look if we can get away with it."
This whole story proves my feeling right, that USA is no longer reliable in any way.

Maybe we should find a label, warning about reduced quality and reliability? Let's say  "Made in the USA"? 
Oh, this label already exists, you say? Well, fine - let's keep it that way!

Umm, maybe you didn't notice, but the TI product change notification says that it's now being made in Malaysia. So there are people in the US making the bad choices, but it's not Made in USA. The same can be said for countless other US companies.

That’s only for the bonding and packaging (i.e. the low-tech part of the process). The fabs (the multibillion-dollar factory where the plain silicon wafers are actually turned into wafers full of chips) in question, RFAB and SFAB, are both in Texas.

In other words, practically all of the value is added in Texas.
In other words, tensely all

[Greybeard]

I've got caught out last year when TI removed the Offset adjustment pins on the TL071!!!!! LIKE you don't get more "Jelly Bean" then the TL071 !!!

Offset adjustment pins N1 and N2 are still available on the TL071C PS Package, 8-Pin SO and TL081C PS Package, 8-Pin SO:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tl071.pdf (rev. July 2025, pages 1+4)
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tl061.pdf (rev. Sept. 2025, pages 1+4)

Other changed "TL" OP amps from TI:

TL051: TI removed the offset adjustment pins. They call it "Enhanced FET Low-Offset Operational Amplifiers", "on-chip offset trimming", so nobody needs offset adjustment anymore?
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tl051.pdf (rev. Jan. 2026)

TL061: May or may not still have offset adjustment pins N1 and N2. They are listed on page 5, but pinout on pages 4+20 shows "NC" instead:
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tl061.pdf (rev. Aug. 2023)