0
\$\begingroup\$

There are some parts that use the same part number across different vendors.
e.g.:

23cxx: SPI SRAM (only Microchip?)
24cxx: I2C EEPROM
25cxx: SPI EEPROM
27cxx: parallel EPROM (UV light erease)
28cxx: parallel EEPROM

and so on.
Is there a list of all the devices in that naming convention like for 74xx series ICs?

\$\endgroup\$

3 Answers 3

1
\$\begingroup\$

There are a lot of examples of this and it was / is done to convey equivalence of functionality. The devil is in the details, though.

The xx1117 low dropout regulator is made by at least 3 companies, but their guidance on the output capacitor is different in all 3 cases (the capacitor ESR is critical for proper operation).

For logic, there is the xx4000 series (CMOS); CD4xxx was originally from RCA and (what was then) Motorola SPS had their equivalent MC14000 series (the only difference is the leading '1').

The world of op-amps has many examples of this (particularly the OPxxx series) but the details are often different (they are often referred to as 'improved' which to an engineer means 'different').

Serial port interfaces (such as the MAX232 and variants) are widely multiple sourced.

The key issue is that the operational voltages and various timings are not necessarily guaranteed to be the same, although devices with a committee specified pinout and operational features will meet that specification (such as in DDRx SDRAM); this is why designing to the specification rather than just the datasheet (which may be far better than the requirement) can be advantageous in case one source of supply becomes unavailable.

The venerable (and ancient) 741 op-amp is also available from multiple vendors, as is the 555 timer (in TTL and CMOS variants) as are many transistors (such as the 2N series) and diodes (1N series for example).

Bottom line: Yes, there are numerous examples of multiple vendors using the same naming convention across analog and digital parts, but beware and read the datasheet carefully.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ So there is no definitive list of all models? If one vendor picks a number then the other just use the same numbering scheme to indicate compatibility. And unless I find some vendor that offers some (randomly picked) 21cxx, I will not know if something like this exists and what it does? \$\endgroup\$
    – kwasmich
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 11:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's like cars. You can buy a sedan, van, sports car, mini-van, luxury car, SUV, or truck. There are at least a dozen manufacturers of each type, and they all pretty much do the same thing. But still, there are differences between say a Dodge van and a Chrysler van. A new vendor would want to classify their creation into one of these categories; would anyone buy a three-door, three-wheel car from XYZ Motor corp? Nope, bad marketing strategy. The best marketing strategy is to make a [vehicle type] which seems better than the previous models. \$\endgroup\$
    – rdtsc
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 12:23
0
\$\begingroup\$

For there to be a definitive list there would also need to be some body that supplied and enforced the definitions. There is currently no such body.

In the early days of integrated circuits, the Department of Defense acted as such a body in the U.S. They published and maintained specifications for certain IC part numbers that were used in military applications, such as the 54LS series of TTL devices.

But market forces and commercial applications have overwhelmed any ability or desire to control part numbers in that way. So, no, there is no list. Caveat emptor.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Even the old DESCC definitions (which still exist) are so loose that there is no guarantee that two parts with the same DESCC classification would be anywhere close to being drop in replacements. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 14:44
0
\$\begingroup\$

If you're after current parts, then do a search at a site like Digikey.com

For example "SPI SRAM" leads to 5 pages of part numbers from 3 different vendors.

If you're after historical numbering, that's a little more time consuming. Going how far back? as one example. I used UV Erasable PROM back in the 80s, when Intel was the main source.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.