Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuits

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

Keep out the CMOS parts

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)

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)

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 http://www.guymacon.com

12.145.33.227 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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 http://www.guymacon.com

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)

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)

12.145.33.227 01:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Guymacon 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

a small fix

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)

Formatting?

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)

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)

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. -- Guymacon 18:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Archived old talk page

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.

Guymacon 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to table format

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)

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 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand List of 7400 series?

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)

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 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

74122/123/130

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 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

74LS78A

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

I placed a copy of the relevant datasheet here: http://www.GuyMacon.com/SN74LS78A.pdf

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 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 02:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 03:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

...lacks inline citations

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 22:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 18:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Invoking WP:IAD now. Guy Macon 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

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 14:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly wait till someone nominates this list for Wikiproject Physics. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

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 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

74S262

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)

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)

"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)

To Datasheet, Or Not To Datasheet; That Is The Question

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's not crazy, it's incomplete. Add the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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)