Why would TI choose to give two completely different types of IC the same code number?


This must have caused considerable confusion over the years.
Anyone know of any other ambiguous IC numbering?

 

LOL I think it is because the parameter values for the output swing voltage and the input voltage range are slightly different. One could say they are identical twins dressed in a different way. The difference is almost negligible.

 

One could say they are identical twins dressed in a different way.

Do you really see a quad opamp and a single low-dropout voltage-regulator as being 'identical twins'? I think it would take more than I/O voltage ranges to make them that.

 

If you follow those link at:
LM3403 | Single Channel LDO | Linear Regulator (LDO) | Description & parametrics

You will find this device:
LM3403 (OBSOLETE)
Quad Operational Amplifiers

The LM34023 was, is, and always shall be, a quad op amp. The search engine running for T.I. is a bit confused, that is all.

No manufacturer would reuse part numbers like that.

 

Do you really see a quad opamp and a single low-dropout voltage-regulator as being 'identical twins'? I think it would take more than I/O voltage ranges to make them that.

Wait a minute. I'm confused haha. I thought both of them are quad op-amps. I didn't know LM3403 was a voltage regulator before. This is indeed confusing.