SO vs SOIC packages - Do they differ between manufacturers?

[AndersJ]

I recently ordered a Texas Instruments CD40106 in a SO14 package,
thinking and assuming it is equivalent to a Nexperia SO14 package.

It is not.
The TI part is wider, and should have been in a SOIC14 package.

Am I mistaken here,
or are package names not always equivalent between manufacturers?

[Mecanix]

You are correct. I've spent quite a few hours days populating an EDA library of so-called 'common' components last spring and one thing I've learn from doing that is; always (always) order a sample part and measure it prior doing anything to it. Occasionally way off tolerances (not often but, you know... some). The only consistency between pckg & their mfg that I've appreciated so far is the pitch :/

[ataradov]

There are narrow and wide body versions. It is not dependent on a manufacturer, they are just different packages.  And more often than not there is no distinction in the name used in the datasheet. Sometimes drawing will mention the body type. Often only if both versions are available.

Package naming is nuts. And unfortunately it gets progressively worse. You can't rely on the name, you just have to check the dimensions every single time.

[exe]

I have two techniques to minimize problems with footprints.

1) I try to buy parts before ordering pcb. I print a picture of pcb in 1:1 scale and the put components to see if they fit.

2) I compare dimensions of spacing of pads on pcb with what datasheet provides.

In general, I try to use exact same component from my EDA database with what I buy (that's not bullet-proof, at least once I had wrong pin assignment). Alternatively, I try to download components from the manufacturers website. Mouser often provides models, check this: https://nl.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Texas-Instruments/CD40106BE/?qs=YhsVCygOPE1CyKyInx%252Bh3Q%3D%3D (in "ECAD Model" row). Not sure how accurate what they provide.

[AndersJ]

There are narrow and wide body versions.

Yes,
I realize there are narrow and wide packages.

My issue/question is whether it is correct that a Nexperia SO14 differs from a TI SO14,
or if I am wrong, drawing that conclusion.

[ataradov]

SO14 is not a complete description of the package. So yes, they can be different yes still be called SO14.

[exe]

My issue/question is whether it is correct that a Nexperia SO14 differs from a TI SO14,

Well, if we are talking about CD40106, then in datasheets for CD40106 from Nexperia and TI have same dimensions and pitch.

My experience with SO(IC) is that they are compatible between manufacturers with some minor dimensional differences and slightly different tolerance (except for wide/narrow body, that's a bummer). They may also have slightly different recommended pads. In same rare cases SOIC can come with thermal pad.

Speaking of dimensional differences, this one has slightly different size than the one from TI: https://www.allegromicro.com/-/media/files/datasheets/a8498-datasheet.ashx . But I bet 0.2mm difference won't prevent soldering, at least not soldering by hands.

If you need to be absolutely certain then check the drawings in datasheets.

[Siwastaja]

SO14 and SOIC14 are not the distinctive names of two different packages as you seem to think. They mean the same. "IC" is just for "integrated circuit" which is obvious anyway.

Either the wide or narrow type can be called SO14, or SOIC14. So neither of the names fully describe a package. These two types, wide and narrow body, are most typical, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out about yet again different type. Also thermal pads mix things up.

You need additional identifier to tell you whether it's about the wide or narrow type. For this, no universal naming standard exist, depends on the chip manufacturer what they call them. Magical words like JEDEC, EIAJ, JEITA, "wide", "narrow" exist, in addition to any manufacturer-specific extra letters and so on. Read the datasheets carefully and look at the part numbers you order carefully to match them to the exact part in datasheet. Always refer to the datasheet drawings. Don't make assumptions related to "common" package types.

[coppice]

My issue/question is whether it is correct that a Nexperia SO14 differs from a TI SO14,

Well, if we are talking about CD40106, then in datasheets for CD40106 from Nexperia and TI have same dimensions and pitch.

Have you checked the exact suffix on the parts you have against their datasheets? Many commodity multi-sourced parts are made in multiple width packages, so manufacturers can grab each other's business during production runs. You need to check the suffix carefully against what is in the datasheet's dimensions page.

[SiliconWizard]

To me, SO and SOIC is the same thing.
(SO = "small outline", SOIC = "small outline integrated circuit")

There is a "wide version" that is usually called SOICW, but naming varies unfortunately. You may see SOICW14, SOICW-14, SOIC14, SOIC14-W, SO14W... A "wide" version without the W letter in the packaging name is wrong, though. Unfortunately, package names are not always very precise and you need to check datasheets. Every vendor tends to have their own convention.

https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd40106b.pdf
https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/HEF40106B.pdf

TI's package body is wider indeed, but not as wide as a 'wide' SOIC package. I agree this sucks and all I can tell you again is to check datasheets when looking for equivalent parts.

In TI's datasheet, you'll see that they actually have a package similar to Nexperia's one. BUT. Nexperia's "SO14" is a 3.9mm-wide body. TI actually calls "SO" in their packaging tables (for short, they have a longer internal name for packages) - part suffix 'NS' - the wider body (5mm+), and "SOIC" the 3.9mm body - part suffix 'D'.

So definitely do not expect 'SO' and 'SOIC' to help. Always check datasheets. Yes this bites.

[jpanhalt]

I have seen with some packages a clear difference between manufacturers, e.g, SOIC-8.  As a rule, I always check the package footprint in the datasheet.  In some instances, manufacturers do not include the footprint, but refer to a compendium of their footprints.

Of course, they are usually similar enough not to make a difference.  That would be no comfort when they are different, and I didn't check.   

[Renate]

Package naming is nuts.

Not as bad as display names!
Oh, yeah, a WQXIASVGA is a wide, quad, inverted, anamorphic stereoscopic VGA!

[SiliconWizard]

Of course, they are usually similar enough not to make a difference.  That would be no comfort when they are different, and I didn't check.

Unfortunately, this 3.9mm vs 5mm width difference is enough to make them not footprint-compatible, unless you design a specific footprint to accomodate that (which would be OK for hand soldering but may not be ideal for automated reflow.)

[tooki]

I recently ordered a Texas Instruments CD40106 in a SO14 package,
thinking and assuming it is equivalent to a Nexperia SO14 package.

It is not.
The TI part is wider, and should have been in a SOIC14 package.

Am I mistaken here,
or are package names not always equivalent between manufacturers?

You know that a simple Wikipedia search would have told you that there are multiple widths of SO/SOP/SOIC packages, and that they depend on the standards body and specific standard, not manufacturer. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_outline_integrated_circuit

With SMD components in general, it’s never a bad idea to verify package and pin dimensions, since they can vary, and images don’t always give any scale which could tip off about a difference.

[tooki]

To me, SO and SOIC is the same thing.
(SO = "small outline", SOIC = "small outline integrated circuit")

There is a "wide version" that is usually called SOICW, but naming varies unfortunately. You may see SOICW14, SOICW-14, SOIC14, SOIC14-W, SO14W... A "wide" version without the W letter in the packaging name is wrong, though. Unfortunately, package names are not always very precise and you need to check datasheets. Every vendor tends to have their own convention.

https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/cd40106b.pdf
https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/data-sheet/HEF40106B.pdf

TI's package body is wider indeed, but not as wide as a 'wide' SOIC package. I agree this sucks and all I can tell you again is to check datasheets when looking for equivalent parts.

In TI's datasheet, you'll see that they actually have a package similar to Nexperia's one. BUT. Nexperia's "SO14" is a 3.9mm-wide body. TI actually calls "SO" in their packaging tables (for short, they have a longer internal name for packages) - part suffix 'NS' - the wider body (5mm+), and "SOIC" the 3.9mm body - part suffix 'D'.

So definitely do not expect 'SO' and 'SOIC' to help. Always check datasheets. Yes this bites.

No, you can’t say that “SO14” without W is “wrong”: TI’s convention (which closely follows the standards bodies) is to use SOIC to refer to JEDEC standards, and SO to refer to JEITA standards. As it happens, JEITA’s narrowest is wider than JEDEC’s narrowest.

Nexperia is following JEDEC but calling it SO, not SOIC. Not as faithful to the conventions of the standards bodies, but still not outright wrong.

Both are perfectly clear in terms of prominently printing the body width on the datasheet.


Also, note that you mixed up the part suffixes and the package drawing codes. D (SOIC) and NS (SO) are the package drawing codes, NOT the part suffixes! M is the part suffix for SOIC, NS for SO. But just to be clear for the OP, these are just TI’s codes, not any kind of industry standard. Each drawing, however, does cite the relevant industry standard.

[exe]

My issue/question is whether it is correct that a Nexperia SO14 differs from a TI SO14,

Well, if we are talking about CD40106, then in datasheets for CD40106 from Nexperia and TI have same dimensions and pitch.

Have you checked the exact suffix on the parts you have against their datasheets?

Not sure I understand you, I only checked "box" dimensions for what I'd call soic-14. Fortunately, they have non-overlapping suffixes, so it's impossible to get a part in unexpected package. Both have ordering information on the very first page, which super helpful to me.

Btw, LCSC provides photos of actual parts, so it's easy to do some at least some sanity check: https://lcsc.com/product-detail/4000-Series_HGSEMI-CD40106BMTR_C194331.html .

[nctnico]

My issue/question is whether it is correct that a Nexperia SO14 differs from a TI SO14,

Well, if we are talking about CD40106, then in datasheets for CD40106 from Nexperia and TI have same dimensions and pitch.

Have you checked the exact suffix on the parts you have against their datasheets?

Not sure I understand you, I only checked "box" dimensions for what I'd call soic-14. Fortunately, they have non-overlapping suffixes, so it's impossible to get a part in unexpected package. Both have ordering information on the very first page, which super helpful to me.

Btw, LCSC provides photos of actual parts, so it's easy to do some at least some sanity check: https://lcsc.com/product-detail/4000-Series_HGSEMI-CD40106BMTR_C194331.html .

Until they don't. Never ever rely on pictures in catalogs or datasheets. Always use the dimensional drawing which matches the package / order code and check that against the footprint in your PCB design program. It helps to have a part database which stores the manufacturer's order code together with the symbol and the footprint. That way you have to do this thourough check only once.

[Siwastaja]

Yes, a distributor picture can warn you about a possible mismatch but that's the last line of defence, don't trust it alone, always check properly.

Also be very careful to verify that,
1) distributor datasheet pdf link really opened the right file
2) datasheets relevant to multiple different part numbers, read the correct sections.

Drawing / verifying correct footprints is somewhat time-consuming and feels like a daunting task first but once you make it your default process, you'll see it isn't too bad, even a single fuck-up costs more time than verifying 1000 footprints.

[jmelson]

SO is NOT the same as SOIC.  I think SO is a Japanese standard that came out about the same time as the US SOIC dimensions.  SO uses the same lead pitch, but the body is wider.  The SO body is about 5.3 mm wide, SOIC body is 3.8mm.  The outer tips of the SO leads are 8mm, for SOIC they are 6.0

Digi-Key stocks both, I've ordered the wrong size several times in the past.

[Siwastaja]

Basically, the process goes like this,

1) You find the best part ever you want to use from a distributor parametric search. The part is ABC123. You opened the pdf, looked at the specs. Great.

2) Now look carefully, the datasheet talks about ABC123XYZ56. It lists three different packages; look at all the drawings, decide which package you want. It's called a package QWE with a drawing code RTY.

3) Still the same pdf open, reference to the table which lists the available part codes. Look at the column that shows this QWE or RTY package. Now you have the full part number, it's magically ABC123XYZ56GHJ.

4) Still the QWE aka RTY package drawing open, create a new footprint in your PCB EDA. Draw it! If this takes too much time or requires tedious initialization ritual steps, learn another PCB EDA which does this right. To be extra sure, you can name this ABC123XYZ56GHJ, then this footprint is for this part only, preventing reuse, but at least you have a 100% correct footprint every time. Or you can name the footprint "manufacturer_x_qwe_aka_rty_package". Or you can try to find more generic patterns like calling it "soic14-narrow" but the more generic you go, the more risk you have.

5) Be sure to buy ABC123XYZ56GHJ, nothing else.

6) Double-check the footprint once more against the datasheet drawings.

7) Safety-check against the distributor photo, or another competitor part drawing you expect to be same. If non-match, your original footprint based on the correct datasheet is still likely the correct one, but a difference could set off alarm bells; be careful!

[Siwastaja]

SO is NOT the same as SOIC.  I think SO is a Japanese standard that came out about the same time as the US SOIC dimensions. 

This is your definition. Someone else may also follow it but by no means is it any kind of universal standard to be trusted. Do not try to signify between the wide and narrow (JEDEC) SOIC by just using "SOIC" and "SO" respectively, confusion guaranteed.

[SiliconWizard]

No, you can’t say that “SO14” without W is “wrong”: TI’s convention (which closely follows the standards bodies) is to use SOIC to refer to JEDEC standards, and SO to refer to JEITA standards. As it happens, JEITA’s narrowest is wider than JEDEC’s narrowest.

I can. As I clearly said, the SOIC 5-mm body is NOT a SOIC-wide. SOIC wide bodies are 7.5mm wide (and 10mm with the pins.)

Nexperia is following JEDEC but calling it SO, not SOIC. Not as faithful to the conventions of the standards bodies, but still not outright wrong.

Whatever, they are using the same abbreviations to refer to different packages. This is what is confusing to customers.

Both are perfectly clear in terms of prominently printing the body width on the datasheet.

Yes, as I said, always refer to the datasheets. And as I said, TI actually has the two different widths, whereas Nexperia only offers one.
The point was exactly that. Each vendor does a different thing, and you need to be aware of it.

Also, note that you mixed up the part suffixes and the package drawing codes. D (SOIC) and NS (SO) are the package drawing codes, NOT the part suffixes!

TI is very nice for that. Ahem. The "NS" package can be found in the suffix for the "CD40106BNSR", the "PW" package in "CD40106BPW" and "CD40106BPWR", but not for "N", "J" and "D".
Same thing for most of their parts. The "package drawing" suffix can be found in some of their parts' ordering suffixes, but not all. So that you pretty much always have to consult the full  "PACKAGING INFORMATION" tables.

[exe]

Ideally, I'd like to have parts database integrated right into my EDA. This way there is no confusion between part number and foot-print. May be even one-click purchase . I heard major EDAs support parts datatabe, often at extra price. My EDA (diptrace) doesn't offer any integrations I have to draw quite a few parts by myself. The most trouble-some for me are mosfet with weird polygons.

[tooki]

No, you can’t say that “SO14” without W is “wrong”: TI’s convention (which closely follows the standards bodies) is to use SOIC to refer to JEDEC standards, and SO to refer to JEITA standards. As it happens, JEITA’s narrowest is wider than JEDEC’s narrowest.

I can. As I clearly said, the SOIC 5-mm body is NOT a SOIC-wide. SOIC wide bodies are 7.5mm wide (and 10mm with the pins.)

:::whoosh::: <— the sound of the point going right over your head.

The point is that SOIC (JEDEC) and SO/SOP (JEITA) aren't the same thing.
JEDEC SOIC narrow: 3.9mm
JEITA SO: 5mm
JEDEC SOIC wide: 7.5mm

So you can't say that "SO [5mm] without W is wrong" because it's not a wide version, it's the narrowest within its standard.

Nexperia is following JEDEC but calling it SO, not SOIC. Not as faithful to the conventions of the standards bodies, but still not outright wrong.

Whatever, they are using the same abbreviations to refer to different packages. This is what is confusing to customers.

Nobody was claiming otherwise. I was adding info to clarify.

Each vendor does a different thing, and you need to be aware of it.

But it's not vendor-specific sizes (the OP's suspicion), it's that there are various industry standards that vendors use.

Also, note that you mixed up the part suffixes and the package drawing codes. D (SOIC) and NS (SO) are the package drawing codes, NOT the part suffixes!

TI is very nice for that. Ahem. The "NS" package can be found in the suffix for the "CD40106BNSR", the "PW" package in "CD40106BPW" and "CD40106BPWR", but not for "N", "J" and "D".
Same thing for most of their parts. The "package drawing" suffix can be found in some of their parts' ordering suffixes, but not all. So that you pretty much always have to consult the full  "PACKAGING INFORMATION" tables.

Wrong. The fact that some of the part suffixes are the same as their package codes does NOT mean they're the same thing! If you'd finished reading the paragraph you cropped at "…NOT the part suffixes", you'd have understood this. Every part has a part suffix, not just some of them!! It's just that the part suffixes and the package codes may be the same, but also may not be. (Thanks to TI having acquired many other semiconductor manufacturers over the years, whose part numbers they had to keep, the TI package codes and the part number suffixes aren't consistent.)

For this part, the N, J, and D package codes correspond to the E, F, and M part suffixes, for plastic DIP, ceramic DIP, and SOIC, respectively.

If one doesn't care how the IC's are wrapped (i.e. tube, tray, reel size, etc), then referring to the Device Information table on page 1 of the datasheet is sufficient to ensure you order the IC in the correct package.

[tooki]

Ideally, I'd like to have parts database integrated right into my EDA. This way there is no confusion between part number and foot-print. May be even one-click purchase . I heard major EDAs support parts datatabe, often at extra price. My EDA (diptrace) doesn't offer any integrations I have to draw quite a few parts by myself. The most trouble-some for me are mosfet with weird polygons.

Many of them do, such as EasyEDA and Altium.

But moreover, component vendors often supply the footprints, schematic symbols, and 3D models via component footprint services like UltraLibrarian, SnapEDA, or SamacSys. For example, you can go to Digi-Key, and for many parts they have a link to the footprint download. And if they don't, check the manufacturer: they often have it.

For example, if you go to TI's product page for the IC which is the subject of this thread, then scroll down to Design and Development and click CAD/CAE symbols. When you click the link for the package you want, it takes you to the correct page on UltraLibrarian, where you can choose a variant if applicable, then download it. It offers a gazillion formats. Diptrace appears to be able to import Eagle footprints, so you'd download in Eagle format and then import it.

(A post I saw appears to indicate that SamacSys has native Diptrace export, so that might be an easier go-to for you. Mouser, for example, uses SamacSys.)