Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuits

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive is here: Archive 1: October 2004 – April 2007

Keep out the CMOS parts[edit]

I'm not sure who would use this list but shouldn't it confine itself to actual bipolar 5-volt TTL parts, and not CMOS stuff like 744060, etc.? --Wtshymanski 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a couple of 744??? entries and added a general comment about such 4000 series equivilents in the notes section. Plugwash 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is, as the title suggests, a "list of 7400 series integrated circuits". Whether they happen to be TTL or CMOS is irrelevant; almost all recent 7400 series parts are CMOS or BiCMOS.


Phillips 74HC7266 datasheet: 

http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/philips/74HC7266.pdf

74230 Octal Buffer/Driver with 3-state outputs

TI SN74AS230A datasheet: 

http://www.unicornelectronics.com/ftp/Data%20Sheets/74as230.pdf

74222 16 x 4 Synchronous FIFO Memory with 3-State Outputs

I have a TI SN74LS222N (also listed as SN74LS222N) in my hand, but could not find a datasheet. It appears to be:

SN54LS222A 16 × 4 SYNCHRONOUS FIRST-IN, FIRST-OUT MEMORY WITH 3-STATE OUTPUTS

...but I can't be sure without a datasheet.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Do these count as 7400 series ICs?

Texas Instruments SN74AUP1G57 Low-Power Configurable Multiple-Function Gate

Texas Instruments SN74AUP1G58 Low-Power Configurable Multiple-Function Gate

Texas Instruments SN74LVC1G98 Configurable Multiple-Function Gate

Texas Instruments SN74LVC1G97 Configurable Multiple-Function Gate

Texas Instruments SN74LVC1G98 Configurable Multiple-Function Gate

Texas Instruments SN74LVC1G99 Ultra-Configurable Multi-Function Gate With 3-State Outputs

If so, what number should they be listed under? Numbers 74157-58 74197-99 are already used by other parts.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These little chips should not be listed here (since they do not have simple base numbers) but there should be a link to page(s) for "other" 74 series, rather than add them all as a section on this page. I do still think the 74HC4xxx (etc) parts do belong in the list though. Maitchy (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more TTL chips 74LS827* 10-Bit Inverting Buffer/Driver 74LS828* 10-Bit Buffer/Driver 78.8.120.176 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12.145.33.227 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a new section and list them as "1G57", etc., since AUP and LVC are the families. --Brouhaha 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.alldatasheet.com/ttl_list.html has a list of 7400 series parts.

Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a small fix[edit]

i changed the links to the non-existant article "Exclusive NOR" (which redirects to the article on logical equality) to point to the more relevant article "XNOR gate". 142.165.95.83 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting?[edit]

Would adding puncuation between the 74 and the number in the series make the list easier to read? Perhaps make 74299 -> 74-299, 74*299, or just '299? I find the list rather hard to read, but possibly it's just me. Theorbtwo 13:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good plan. Manufacturers don't use punctuation in the part numbers and neither should Wikipedia. A list of part numbers is pretty much a "big dumb list" and in my opinion of little value anyway. --Wtshymanski 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has the time, a possible improvement would be to list which parts are are available in which type - 7407, 74LS07, 74HC07, etc. Another possible improvement would be to add an obsolete tag to parts which are lo longer available. This would only be a minor improvement; the main use for a list such as this is to look up which 7400-series part number is a triple 3-input O.C. NAND gate. -- Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another 'main' use of this list is to find the function of a (possibly discontinued and/or unavailable) 74-series device, so as to figure out a replacement method or design around it. Many otherwise excellent datasheet resources on the Internet often do not include reference to such devices. There are also so-called 74-series devices which are/were manufactured by a limited number of fabs and have fallen out of use; this does not mean that they should be excluded from a list such as this in my opinion especially in the light of the other 'main' use of the list I mention above. It is worth noting that there are several very cooperative suppliers who still sell 'discontinued' or 'obsolete' devices from stock often bought in from companies with an overflow of unwanted stock for earlier products - very useful for repair and prototype modification purposes, as long as you can find and identify the device you are interested in. F.C.Trevor Gale. 80.101.115.225 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such a table would be tedious to keep current, and I think it's unencyclopedic anyway. Your vendor will be happy to tell you which parts are and aren't available, and in which flavors. -- Mikeblas 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a better-formatted table. The suggestion of DMahalko is a good nudge in that direction, but I wouldn't want exactly those columns. And I agree it would be very difficult to keep the data current (in fact, it is at the moment, with the limited data already), but it might be worth it. People ask: what is the point of the list? I think one answer is that all the chips with their brief description can be found in one place. Normal google searches return lots of rubbish... if you look for a 74H16 for example, there are many non-TTL results and some sites may list parts that do not exist (since they hope people will request prices for part numbers they don't have - harvested with dubious quality from goodness-knows-where). That says to me that it could be worth having a list that includes the parts within subfamilies that have existed (whether or not they are available today from major suppliers).

Even more, I would like a table arranged by type of device, to find a part number from its type, e.g. this small example:

GATES Quad 2-Input Triple 3-Input Dual 4-Input 8-Input More Inputs
AND 7408, 7409*, 74130*,74131* 7411, 7415* 7421    
OR 7432 744075   744078  
XOR 74135, 74136*, 74386        
NAND 7400, 7401*,7403*,7426*,7413,7424 7410, 7412* 7420, 7422* 7430 74133, 74134*
  7437, 7438*, 7439   7440, 74140    
NOR 7402, 7436, 74232 7427 7423,7425,744002 744078  
  7428, 7433*, 74128        
XNOR 74135, 74266*, 747266        

Maitchy (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived old talk page[edit]

I just archived this talk page as is, added a link to the archive, and removed all comments that do not apply to the content of the page. Wikipedia has a procedure for suggesting page deletion; that procedure should be followed rather tha arguing about whether the page is useful in it's talk page. If anyone disagrees with the archiving I did, please feel free to revert the talk page page to the previous state.

Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to table format[edit]

A table would be somewhat easier to read than a plain list, especially if additional columns of data are to be added. I have created an example converted table with additional columns here: User:DMahalko/7400table

DMahalko (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very useful, IMO. I will try to fill in the blank entries in the next few days, and then I will move it over to the main page. Guy Macon (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expand List of 7400 series?[edit]

I would like to see a page for each of the 74xx/74xxx ic's with a pin-out for each. Since, generally speaking, each 7400-series device uses a "standardized" pin-out, there should not be any ambiguity in that regard. Specs could be ignored since there are diffences between 74xx/LS/HC, etc.

I would be happy to personally spearhead the effort (although it could take a while to complete).

I guess my only real concern is whether anyone besides me would find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy.cooper (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see severs issues here.
First, should there be more information about each IC? I say yes. there are many improvements that can be made.
Second, should all that information be crammed into this page? Probably not. It would quickly become too large.
Third, should we create 522 new pages, one per number? No. That's far too many, and manyof those pages will be near-duplicates.
How about this as a solution: make a page about Priority Encoders, one about BCD to 7-segment Decoder/Drivers, etc., and list multiple 7400-series logic chips on each page. Then link to them from the descriptions on this page. Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But given that each part number generally describes a different functional part, wouldn't that approach still lead to the creation of a few hundred pages? There would be some overlap where the higher part number represents just a next-generation of a part, so some savings could be realized. Or are you talking about combining all gate devices (without regard to the number of gates or inputs) on the same page? i.e.; All NAND gates on one page, all NOR gates on another, etc. That would realize additional savings. Guy.cooper (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even Texas Instruments doesn't give each part number its own page, especially for the SSI. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

74122/123/130[edit]

The following entries...

74122: Retriggerable Monostable Multivibrator with Clear

74123: Dual Retriggerable Monostable Multivibrator with Clear

74130: Quad 2-input AND gate Buffer with 30V open collector outputs

74131: Quad 2-input AND gate Buffer with 15V open collector outputs

...appear to conflict with this TI datasheet:

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/sn74123.pdf

Any comments before I edit the Wikipedia page to match the datasheet?

Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

74LS78A[edit]

Why is 74LS78A, an "LS" device included in the list? --Mortense (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we put references in articles, we'd know this. It looks like the ls version is slightly different logic from the other flavors. My TTL data book 3rd ed. is around...in a box somewhere. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"LS" stands for "low power schottky". The multiple emmiter/base junction is manufactured with this semiconductor technology. Two advantages, one tenth the current required to perform the functionality. better noise immunity at edge threshold transistion time, due to the switching speed of the device. One other major consideration is power consumption and heat production in a typical 19" rack enclosure, common design featuire of early TTL (transistor - transisitor logic) devices used in early data processing circuits. It could also be a suitable interface device for open collector CMOS "74" versions running on 5v due to its low power switching requirement. The "54" series were military grade using ceramic packaging as opposed to plastic, and were selected for wider operating temperature range. Higher currents were also used to trigger logic states. The "h" series were a further enhancement to interact with "real world" current requirements, such as filament display drivers (petrol pumps) and transmission line drivers (modems). I spent many a happy hour with Tandys "cast offs", checking the spec. of "cheap" devices with my home made "plug and pray" tester. One more range was the "flat pack" ceramic and gold lead variety of TTL chip, about 4mm x 3mm, fiddly to play with. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this is discussed at transistor-transistor logic which has little to do with most of the parts listed in this catalog. I've never seen a live system using flat-pack TTL, which I suspect was aimed more at the aerospace and military areas, which are outside my experience. TTL data books are unpacked, maybe I can find which edition this difference appears in. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave my c1975 TTL data books to a budding 14 year old radio amateur in 2003. I do however, have somewhere, in my hordes of boxes, a few of those little gold beauties. I`ll try and dig them out. I just like anything gold !. I think the number began with "BHM7 something". (P.S. Here it is [1] 6th posting just below the cherries.) I`ll have a look at TTL article page, should bring back a few memories. I have a 7413, 7490, 7400, 7448, etc. home brew 50hz clock (still works) piccy somewhere, I'll post it to you on here. This catalogue is "so" good, never knew there were so many in the "74" range of chips. Can't wait to see the "54" list when it's ready ! Francis E Williams (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a copy of the relevant datasheet here: (dead link)

As you can see, the H78 does not have the same pinout as the L78 and LS78A, the H78 and L78 do not have the same truth table as the LS78A, and the H78, L78, and LS78A have three different schematics and three different logic symbols.

As far as I know, this was the only time TI violated the rule that calls for the 74H78, 74L78, 74LS78, 74LS78A, etc. to have the same pinout and the same truth table. No other manufacturer appears to have repeated TI's error. I guess TI didn't get the memo about listing the 7400 series being easy and fun...

Alas, the List of 7400 series integrated circuits Wikipedia page is organized according to the rule that TI violated in this one instance, and so we have to list the parts separately. I just redid those three parts on the list with the hope that it will be clear what the differences are. BTW, can anyone find an online source for the TI datasheet I referenced above? I want to put in a note with a citation, but I don't want to link to my personal web page to do it. Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TI TTL Data Book, first edition (copyright 1973), shows the 74L78 and 74LS78 with the same pinout (Vcc on pin 4), but different function tables. The H and the L parts have different pinouts - H has Vcc on pin 14, L and LS have Vcc on pin 4, but the same function table. The second edition (copyright 1981) has the 74LS78A part, instead of plain LS. The 1988 TI book only lists the LS78A part. Motorola's 1980 LS book only lists the LS78A, and the Signetics 1982 "TTL Logic Data Manual" doesn't list any 74X78XX parts at all. I wonder what the story was. Different pinout, and a revised version of the LS chip between '73 and '81. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this at RS compopnents [2] it leads to all the 7400 data sheets, some here [3]. Looks like where Guy got his data from too. It appears Sygnetics had their own peculair pinouts. Did you like the little gold chips? Francis E Williams (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. more:- [4].Francis E Williams (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the list has:

  • 7478 (Non-TI): Dual Negative Edge Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear (pinout not the same as TI 74H78)
  • 74H78 (TI-only): Dual Positive Pulse Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear (pinout not the same as 74L78/74LS78A)
  • 74L78 (TI-only): Dual Positive Pulse Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear (pinout not the same as 74H78)
  • 74LS78A (TI-only): Dual Negative Edge Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear (pinout not the same as 74H78)

Here is where I am now on a better version:

  • 74H78: Dual Positive Pulse Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear (pinout not the same as 74L78 / 74LS78 / 74LS78A)
  • 74L78: Dual Positive Pulse Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear
  • 74LS78: Dual (Positive Pulse Triggered Negative Edge Triggered?) J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear
  • 74LS78A: Dual Negative Edge Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear

I am signifying the different truth tables by listing Positive Pulse Triggered or Negative Edge Triggered in the description.

I can't find a TI 74LS78 datasheet, but it looks to me like only the 74H78 has a different pinout (please check and see i this is correct).

I don't know whether the 74LS78 is Positive Pulse Triggered Negative Edge Triggered.

Are there any examples of the same full part number having different truth tables or different pinouts?

Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might help clarify [5], the truth table indicates neg (H - L transition) down arrow. Francis E Williams (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a 74LS78A datasheet. It is the 74LS78 that I cannot find a datasheet for. Could it be that TI jumped straight from the 74L78 to the 74LS78A, and that no 74LS78 from any manufacturer ever existed? Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The LS78 data sheet in the first edition TI book (page 77) has the same function table as the LS78A in the 2nd edition (page 5-24), and both of them show the falling edge transition as the effective clock edge. Just because the LS78 is in the data book doesn't mean that they sold any, though. Squinting at tiny numbers on data sheets, it looks like the LS78A has slightly higher input low current on the clock pin and the D,J,K inputs. The LS78 claims 2 to 4 mA per flip flop and the LS78A says 4 to 6 mA total package current. But I don't imagine these tiny differences are why there's two versions of the part! --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks like "74LS78" will work for the 74LS78 and 74LS78A, so I am going to change the page to this:

  • 74L78: Dual Positive Pulse Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear
  • 74LS78: Dual Negative Edge Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear
  • 74H78: Dual Positive Pulse Triggered J-K Flip-Flop with Preset, Common Clock, and Common Clear (different pinout than 74L78 / 74LS78)

Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't get into all the data sheet details here, but there is a note on the function table saying the logic states on the L and H parts must be kept stable during the top of the pulse, and the state present at the time of the falling edge will govern; I don't know enough about TTL to see why the LS part is immune to this problem. Somewhere on a golf course in Texas, someone is even now teeing up who knows the full sordid story behind the 74X78X parts; why the differing pinouts? Why the revised A part? Why is there no plain-vanilla part? I wonder if these were maybe run up for a particular OEM who needed a carload of flip-flops? Center-of-package Vcc and ground is only found in a few TTL parts and I've always wondered why. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...lacks inline citations[edit]

The References section of the article has this tag:

"This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (October 2009)"

It sounds as if this is asking for someone to put up to ten numbered links on every IC on the list showing which are listed in each TTL databook. Or perhaps it is asking for page numbers as well, which would make the references section hundreds of items long.

I agree that making the sources clear is very important, but I am having trouble figuring out how to do that in this particular case. Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why parts-lists don't belong in an encyclopedia. Soon you'll wind up with a table saying things like "1/4-20 by 1/2 inch stove bolt, reference <foo>, 1/4-20 by 3/4 stove bolt, reference <bar>, 1/4-20 by 7/8 stove bolt, reference <baz> " - and so forth. Easy and fun to write, but useless in terms of an encyclopedia article. I wanted the whole list gone, but I was shouted down by sacred consensus. Now we'll never know how to check if a 74HC46100 is realy a triple 4-input NAND gate or a quad 3-input NOR gate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume bad faith as you did when you wrote "I was shouted down by sacred consensus." Unless you have evidence that other editors are editing in bad faith (in which case you should take it though the dispute resolution process with diffs showing examples of you being "shouted down"), you should assume that the other editors are, like you, simply trying to improve Wikipedia.
I am particularly concerned by your charge of "shouting down." On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean overpowering a dissenting opinion by numerous people who disagree with that opinion. The goal is to seek consensus, a joint agreement that all can live with, and to end up with the dissenter agreeing to edit according to the consensus view. If you really feel you were shouted down, (I don't think you were) WP:DR has a series of steps you can take to resolve the issue.
As for your comments about "sacred consensus," consider, if you will, the disagreement we had a while back about negative power factor. You failed to convince me, I failed to convince you, there was no consensus, so it stayed as it was before the disagreement, which happens to be the way you wanted it. I remain convinced that IEEE Standard 1459 specifically defines its scope as including only circuits where real power flows to the load, and thus by definition cannot be used to describe a circuit where real power flows from the load, but I failed to get a consensus supporting that view, and I accept that lack of consensus. I have not revisited the issue on the talk pages, nor have I edited that page to include what I still think would be a better description of power factor. You should do the same here; accept the fact that you have no consensus for deleting this list, drop the stick, and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia "consensus" ever only represents a tiny faction of the 100,000+ active editors in any particular deletion discussion. I'm not about to nominate this for deletion again, because the sacred Wikipedia consensus is nearly always in favor of listcruft. Lists are easy and fun to do, as opposed to articles, which take real research and work to write. I have pointed out here, yet again,why parts lists don't belong on the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking WP:IAD now. Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than "this list should be deleted" (opinion duly noted), nobody has provided a good reason why the inline citations tag should be applied, and there are IMO good reasons why it should not be (see above), so I am removing it. Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly wait till someone nominates this list for Wikiproject Physics. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm is not helpful. You have been warned about not being civil. If you keep this up, I will have to decide whether to ignore you completely or to take this through the dispute resolution process, but I would much rather have you voluntarily decide to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies on civility. You nominated this page for deletion, and there was a strong consensus to keep it. Any other suggestions you might have for improving this page would be very much appreciated. Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


74S262[edit]

The 74S262 is a 20-pin DIL package IC, in the 74-series of Schottky TTL, and is indeed a character-generator ROM in that technology. It was used in some ITT colour television Teletext Decoders which at the time used a great deal of other TTL in the design. I have several of these devices, date coded for 1977 and 1978 and I knew them as used in 1979. I do have the data sheet for this device but it will take a little time to find where I have it filed. F.C.Trevor Gale. 80.101.115.225 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of this part (character generator ROM) is thinly strewn about some documents found on the net, for example in CQ-TV 130 p. 23. Proper datasheet seems to be unavailable online... What to do about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.232.239 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to CQ-TV 130?
I Could find no datasheet or pinout for a 74S262 (or 74LS262 or 74HC262, etc).
My search found this: http://vss.pl/cq_tv/cq-tv150.pdf (CQ-TV Magazine No. 150) which says
"2716 E--PROM - programmed as a substitute for 74S262 (see mod in CQ-TV132)"
I could not find CQ-TV Magazine No. 132.
This substitution, assuming it isn't a typo, might imply this:
A 2716 has 12 address lines and 8 data lines, so it can be programmed to emulate a quad 3-input logic gate IC or a hex 2-input logic gate IC. So a 74S262 could be a TTL logic part.
However, the claim above that it is a "character generator ROM" leads me to believe that it is actually a ROM with a character set in it that just happens to have been assigned a number beginning with 74L. In other words not a 7400 series IC.
Unless more information is available (a schematic of something using the part would be a huge help, I have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that a 7400 series IC with the part number 74S262 ever existed. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wireless World" was under the same hallucination back in 1983, Volume 89, according to Google Books. They seem to have got over it. Parts catalogs are tricksy things, they is...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 74S262 is now in the main table. Drahtlos (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Datasheet, Or Not To Datasheet; That Is The Question[edit]

To datasheet, or not to datasheet, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of missing pinouts and specifications, or to take arms against this sea of troubles, and by linking to a datasheet for each part end them: to link, to cite no more; and by a link, to say we end the heartache, and the thousand natural shocks that electronics engineering is heir to? 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished by Wtshymanski, to have a link-free list. To read, perchance to design by; aye, there's the rub, for in that designing without datasheets, what designs may come when we have shipped, must give us pause. There's the respect for remaining within the specification envelope that makes engineering of so long product life: for who would bear the whips and scorns of Wikipedia content disputes, the deletionist is without consensus, the proud inclusionist contumely, the pangs of despised Consensus, the Wikipedia Policies’ delay, the insolence of tendentious editors, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy Wikimarkup, when he himself might his Quietus make with a bare Bodkin?

We are gathered together here today to consider the following three edits:

Edit One

Revert One

Revert Two

Revert Three

Revert Four

This discussion touches upon a basic disagreement about what an encyclopedia is, and a deep disagreement by many, many editors about what is widely perceived as` shoving a particular interpretation down our throats against consensus. But it also is about this simple question: to link to datasheets or not to link to datasheets? Which makes for a better article? Please discuss. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's most likely to meet EL for a component parts catalogue article like this? – the relevant datasheet. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wtshymanski, in your edit you cited WP:NOT. Would you please be so kind as to explain exactly what part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not you believe excludes us adding links to datasheets on this page? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on whether we should include datasheet links or not but if we are going to do it we should be consistent about it. Having a colum with just one entry in it is just crazy. Plugwash (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crazy, it's incomplete. Add the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but given Wtshymanski's well-known and ongoing behavioral problems (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski and User talk:DieSwartzPunkt/WTS for details) and his decision to edit war rather than discussing the issue, we need to deal with his tendentious editing first. Once that is resolved, and after we discuss the question of which datasheet to link to (7400 series parts typically have several manufacturers), we can focus on adding more links. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added another 90 datasheets. So, what do we do if there are, say, 3 chipmakers who currently make the 74HC and 74HCT version, one that makes the 74HCT and 74LS versions, and one that no longer exists but used to make the 74LS and 74S versions?

Maybe if we had a hot clue as to why we need to have datasheets in an encyclopedia, we could decide which datasheets to include? Or we could just keep Googling for random .PDF files and linking them here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we need to need to have links to datasheets in an encyclopedia is the same reason why we have any other citation: WP:V. Those 90 datasheet links I added have already had a positive effect; in this edit an IP editor corrected an error where the datasheet and the description on our list did not match.
Wtshymanski, the consensus is clearly against you on deleting the links to datasheets, just as earlier it was against you deleting this entire list. Your opinion has been noted. Repeating it again and again with new sarcastic comments is getting tiresome. Either put up an RfC and in it present your best arguments in the hope that having a bunch of new eyes looking at it will result in the consensus changing or drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. If the existence of this page and of multiple editors who want to improve it bothers you so much, why don't you simply remove the page from your watchlist and get on with your life? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't like primary, self-published sources? Still no clue as to why you'd look up pinout diagrams in an encyclopedia instead of the manufacturer's literature. I eagerly await the catalog of stove bolts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double borrowings[edit]

The article currently states

"There is even some reference to double-borrowings, such as 74193 -> 40193 -> 74HC40193[1]!" However other than the one reference the article cites I can't find any evidence that a 74HC40193 exists while a 74HC193 certainly does seem to. This seems to me to be more likely an error in a book than a part number actually used on a device. Plugwash (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Feel free to remove the claim and the part. If someone wants to put it back, they will have to find a citation supporting it. Good catch, BTW. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google seems to find 2 more references for a 74HC40193: Modern TTL Circuits Manual, page 170, and Digital Logic IC, page 316, both by R.M.Marston, and both available on Google Books. Neither book gives any further reference (eg. mentioning a manufacturer) except for a self-citation; this looks like a mistaken author to me. Given the prior doubt, I'll remove the claim. 46.223.183.126 (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the '1G' parts?[edit]

Do we really need to include the '1G' parts in this list? After all, they're just single versions of the IC that's already described. IMO they just clutter the list. MinimanDragon32 (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I find it rather useful to know if a G-variant exists or not. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they should stay. Sometimes you need one more gate and don't have room for anything larger. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some more than could be added:

  • 741G132 Single 2-input NAND gate with Schmitt Trigger input
  • 741G135 2-Input NAND Schmitt-Trigger with Open Drain Output

71.167.68.202 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of a clutter. I wonder if we should move the "1G" parts into a new section? Just a thought. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More "1G" parts: 1G57, 1G58, 1G97, 1G98, 1G99. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "2G" and "3G" are useful too: 74LVC2G14, 74LVC2G17, 74LVC3G14, 74LVC3G17. These are also available in other families too, such as "AUP" and others. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last night, after an anonymous editor removed the 1G parts, I decided today to solve this issue by adding dedicated sections for the 1 gate (1G) parts, plus sections for 2 gate (2G) and 3 gate (3G) parts too. In general, new 1G/2G/3G parts is where industry has been very active in the past decade to support lower voltage logic families, thus it makes sense to add these sections. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wasn't sure what to call the new sections, so I took a stab at it. If someone has better ideas, please post them here so we can bounce around some ideas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octal vs 8-bit devices[edit]

I added the new units column and started to classify the octal xxx parts as having 8 units but I think that that would only apply to units that are wholly independent, no? I.e. if they all share a common enable pin. If so, then we might want to consider renaming those to 8-bit xxx parts (single unit) since they operate in unison.--Hooperbloob (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing 74as850[edit]

This part exist since we have it in our drawers in our lab. It seems to be a 1-of-16 multiplexor with tristate output. I didn't test the chips, though.128.179.185.88 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 74x850 is now in the main table. Drahtlos (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

74130 / 74131[edit]

Per recent changes. AFAICS, there are two versions, for the same base part number (I've not seen this before).

The ur-74 series is a dual monostable. The later 74HCT series part though is an open collector high voltage driver (as AND gates). More sources are welcome, but we probably need to note both of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further, it looks like there might be only one - the monostable (I think I even used one of those, back in the day). The open collector driver is from an unrelated HCT logic series, with a part number beginning "935174..." This shows up as a text match through Google, but it's not a 74xx series part. It doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nxp.com datasheets no more, modified URLs to assets.nexperia.com[edit]

Hi everyone.

URLs pointing to nxp.com were all broken when I started looking through earlier today, and it seems like the old NXP datasheets have been moved to a new domain.

I went through and updated nxp.com datasheet URLs where I could, or substituted in some TI variants if I couldnt find the new corresponding datasheet.

Quite a large number were updated, so I wont list them all individually here. I hope everything I have changed is fine (first commit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.storey (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I converted all nxp.com links into nexperia.com links. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No datasheets for these parts[edit]

As I incrementally cleanup the big table, if I can't find a datasheet then I'm moving those parts here until someone finds a datasheet. Also, I listed missing numbers from 7400 to 74200, in case they exist. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC) --- Special Thanks to Drahtlos for the massive amount of work after I briefly started a cleanup effort when I added blank cells for the four new columns: Input / Output / Pins / Datasheet. I updated the first 40 rows and added first 100+ datasheets, then Drahtlos did all the rest!!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would modify the above sightly to require not a data sheet, but a reliable source. As a made-up example, if there are multiple schematics and app notes from multiple vendors talking about the Yoyodyne 74HC31337 being a quad never gate (the output is always zero no matter what the input is -- compare with the related inoperational amplifier and dark emitting diode) but we can't find a datasheet, that would be good enough for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer vs gate[edit]

Hi @Sbmeirow: buffer is usually meant to indicate a higher output current, as in 7420 - dual 4-input NAND gate, vs 7440 - dual 4-input NAND buffer. If we replace buffer with gate in the description then perhaps something like "high current" should be indicated in the Output column. Or we could put 'buffer' back in the description... Cheers, Drahtlos (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer is certainly correct, and much the better term. The 74xx family often had two similar devices listed, on a set of gates and the other an equivalent set of buffers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'm glad that both of you commented on this subject matter! When editing and looking at Texas Instrument datasheets, I noticed the "buffer" term in some of the titles. At that time, I did some quick comparison of datasheets, some google searching, then decided to move on and revisit again after I did more research. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2) I'm not overly fond of using the term "high current" / "higher current" / ..., because these terms are very generic and can mean almost anything that a marketing department wants them to mean. If we can find it, I prefer this article use better descriptive terms, such as "+50% output current" or "1.5x output drive" or "20mA output current" or something that's more obvious and clarifies how the part is different than other chips. There are 2 things we need to do: 1) determine exactly what is meant by "buffer" on each chip that uses the term, 2) does "buffer" mean the same across multiple chips or different on every chip, 3) after information is gathered, then decide a useful descriptive term for the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3) I'm not overly fond of using the term "buffer" to mean a high strength output, because it a common term that means "non-inverting inverter" gate. Also, just because the gate is called a buffer, doesn't automatically mean it has a high strength, because a "buffer" might have tri-state outputs at the same output strength. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4) In the description column, my preference is using common obvious terms and modern descriptions for the parts, instead of using the EXACT SAME title as listed on old Texas Instruments datasheets. The two might be the same, or slightly different wording that means the same thing, or slightly different to describe it better. A simple example is "Exclusive OR", it makes more sense in 2018 to use "XOR" in this article. Also, I prefer use one common way to describe something across the entire article, such as "XOR" everywhere instead of "XOR and "Exclusive OR"; or "buffer" and "non-inverting inverter". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what happens if you look at this in terms of fan-out? Is that then a consistent difference between the two sets? Otherwise I'd go with high and low current, but this would have to be stated and it's going to very widely between the families. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to mark devices with higher drive capabilities in the Output column as driver, followed by either the fan-out NO or the maximum output current, depending on which value is the same across logic subfamilies. Drahtlos (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Combining 'legacy' vs 'modern chips?[edit]

NO SEPARATION OF "LEGACY" AND "MODERN" CHIPS
There is consensus that the list should not separate its entries into "legacy" and "modern" chips. However, there is no consensus as to how the list should be formatted. — Newslinger talk 11:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Currently this page attempts to differentiate 'legacy' and 'modern' chips. Can we instead combine the section to focus on as list of functions in the 7400s? First, this creates an arbitrary line between of the age of a part and does not denote whether the part is in production. Second, the 7400 is a 2-input NAND gate where all subsequent families used a 74xx00 as a the NAND function in the family. This would remove the need for the 1G-3G tables since 1G-3G parts are their are device families; this is because the LVC1G and the LVC device families are different technologies and can be seen in the voltage ranges of the devices. Rings48 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no distinction in the article between "legacy" and "modern" chips, and I would be opposed to adding one. Maproom (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) I renamed the sections after this request was posted over 1 week ago, so now the sections are split by pin count, higher number of pins vs lower number of pins. 2) The top table is over 650 part entries, which is "out of control" too big, so adding anything more to it doesn't make sense. 3) I don't have an issues of merging the 3 bottom low-pin-count sections together as a new bottom table. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reformat. Wow, now that's a list! I'm no expert in this field but I was impressed by the parent article on the 7400 chips and this list. These chips have been around for a long time and, as a lay person, when I looked at the list I was thinking, "OK, but which of these are newer and probably being used right now, and how manny of these are obsolete." I'm not defending that this is the best way to list the items, but again, it was the prevailing thought in my head. So, I would vote for the list to be something akin to what User:Rings48 suggested, above, where the list be broken out by family, and those should be in order of age. On a side note, and this has nothing to do with my vote, I wonder if the table of eastern-bloc chips in the main article needs to be moved to this page as a separate list rather than taking up space in the main article? StarHOG (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is wrong. The list presently appears to be sorted by part number, which is not related to function and is not related to age. It would be useful to order the list by function,and also to indicate which of the circuits are still in production. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it more likely that a reader knows a part number (usually because they are looking at a board that has one on it) and wants to look up the function, or is it more likely that a reader is designing a new product using TTL, knows the function, and wants to find out the part number?

How about this; a section with all chips in numeric order, split per WP:NCSPLITLIST, and a section listing non-obsolete chips organized by function? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that if you are looking for a specific part number, then you would go to the actual datasheet or manufacturers website. I originally started making edits on this page when every link on this list was to a single manufacturer (Nexperia). Previously the sections of larger and smaller footprints was legacy vs modern; thank you to whomever made the change.
I am pro-'function centered'. Almost every part number has a pin-to-pin replacement from another technology family. There are very few functions that have been discontinued and no function (to my knowledge) is different between families. This would mean a datasheet for each function to explain what it is and not a huge list of part numbers and every iteration of it. People can go to a manufacturers website if they want to actually pick out a part to buy. Rings48 (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider: Do we really need this list? WP:NOTCATALOG might not apply in its strictest sense, but in my very humble and non-dogmatic opinion, Wikipedia really shouldn't be a place where people come to look up what a particular chip does. Furthermore I consider that the people who collated this list might like to put the information into WikiData to promote its re-use. --Slashme (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is really: What is the purpose of this list? Here is my take: A circuit designer would probably go to the manufacturer's website for current data sheets, availability, and pricing, so she is not the target audience of this article. Rather, this article shows how the 7400 series has developed over five decades. As such, in my opinion the list should try to show the 7400 series in its entirety and should specifically include obsolete chips that have long since disappeared from common data books. Very roughly, the numerical order of chips also represents a chronological order. The typical reader would be someone (student, hobbyist, museum curator, repair technician...) with a circuit board or schematic in hand, trying to find out what a certain chip does, often not even knowing the manufacturer. Drahtlos (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You make a compelling argument. I take back whatever I said or implied before; you have convinced me that a numeric sort -- possibly split per WP:NCSPLITLIST -- is best. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do about duplicate part numbers?[edit]

As I looked through the old data books, I found several part numbers that were assigned twice for completely different functions, sometimes by different companies, sometimes even by Texas Instruments. How should those be handled? Should we list both assignments (as I started for 74x68 and 74x69)? Or, if we list only one, then which? Here are the conflicts I found:

Drahtlos (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a quandary. We definitely don't want to pick one. Two in one entry might make the table too wide.
I Like the way you handled it with the 74LS547 and 74F547 entries. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any info on the 74F416, but this was amusing. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word complementary[edit]

There are a few instances where the word complementary is used in the table. (I just edited out two with the 74x230/231) Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought the word complementary specifically refers to a situation like a flip flop with a Q and /Q output. The root word complement designates a relationship between two objects. When a chip has both inverted and non-inverted inputs/outputs that are unrelated, they are not complementary. One does not influence or complement the other in any way, they are just different. The term creates unnecessary ambiguity because the term has meaning in one instance that is not present in the other. A chip like the 74x265 is a great example of a chip with real complementary outputs, while calling the 74x741's enable pins complementary makes no sense. Does anyone care to add some insight for or against removing the word complementary for unrelated functions? I realize the TI 74x741 datasheet uses the word complementary but I'm calling that their mistake. Jake Little (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a real problem on WP where sourcing over-writes everything, including truth, clarity and accuracy. You have a good point here - and for the 230 / 231 not being helpfully described as 'octal'. But expect to get some pushback over this about sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Jake Little and Andy Dingley above. Drahtlos (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

74888 anchor[edit]

@Matthiaspaul: it appears that the {{anchor}} template does not handle multiple anchor values correctly (and I don't know how to fix the template). With the restored anchor, List of 7400-series integrated circuits#54888 works but List of 7400-series integrated circuits#74888 does not. Seeing that 74888 is used more often than 54888, I changed the anchor to the more common case. As a compromise, I will change the anchor from {{anchor|74888|54888}} to {{anchor|54888|74888}} so the more common case works now and both will work when the template is fixed. That said, 54888 is used only by redirects which nobody uses and which can probably be removed. Drahtlos (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good observation! I experimented a bit in the sandbox and found out that the template works fine, but if multiple anchors are placed in the |- table element, only the last one seems to work. This is regardless if the anchors were created by a single or by multiple invocations of the {{anchor}} template in a row. This should not happen.
As a workaround I have moved the less important anchor into the first column of that table row. While this is not exactly the same position, most browsers still seem to set the focus on the corresponding line correctly.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please fix sorting[edit]

Currently, sorting works one the title rows for each section. Options for fixing include:

  1. Make them separate tables instead of one large (if this, maybe also add the collapsible property)
  2. Add class="sortbottom" or class="sorttop" to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year of introduction[edit]

I think it would be historically interesting and encyclopedically relevant to learn about the exact year of introduction of each of the listed parts, to be mentioned in a separate table column. However, I am well aware that this would be very difficult to track down reliably unless someone has a comprehensive archive of very old chip data sheets, catalogs and magazines. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that would be interesting. But given that many parts were introduced in the 1960s and archive.org does not have many documents from that time period, I am not optimistic that it can be done. On top of that, for a number of parts we still don't have a datasheet at all. Drahtlos (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but not worth adding another column for it, because not easy to validate the year for each part. Also, all of these don't come from the same manufacturer either. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_7400-series_integrated_circuits&oldid=1203617192"