• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 47 subscribers
  • Views 178 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TLV342: "Typical" current consumption from TLV342 datasheet

Ole-Egil Hvitmyren
Prodigy 30 points

Part Number: TLV342
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: OPA2310, OPA2383, OPA2314, TLV341, TLV2314

Hi. I designed the TLV342 into a design in 2023, and it's running in volume. At first we noticed that we were seeing pretty consistently about 88uA per channel, vs 70uA from the datasheet. But since that was still inside the max of 150uA, we didn't worry too much about it.

But in July of 2025, the datasheet changed, and the typical is now listed as 150uA, with max of 210uA. There are several issues with this. Firstly, it was unannounced, and snuck out as a new revision of the datasheet with no PCN. Second, the front page of the datasheet AND the product webpages have not been changed, which means in the parametric search it's still listed as 70uA per channel.

But I have tested a whole lot of devices and we're still seeing 88uA per channel. We would have been entirely fine with a change to typical 90, but we are now worried that we'll suddenly start receiving devices that actually consume 150-210uA per channel. If we have to live with that sort of current consumption, there are cheaper and/or less noisy alternatives on the market. The entire point of choosing TLV342 was for the acceptable trade-off between noise, price and current.

I guess my question is "why list a typical quiescent current of 150uA (up from 70uA) when we always see ~88uA?" Also, how can we trust an IC manufacturer that suddenly and silently more than doubles the current consumption of an IC 10 years after introduction? I am using TI chips all over the place, this has rocked our trust in TI to the core. Several of the alternatives I am investigating are from TI, like OPA2310, OPA2314, OPA2383 etc, but it's going to take quite some convincing to commit to another TI solution here.

  • 0
    TI__Guru 71651 points

    Ole-Egil,

    There were two PCNs sent out for this change. The first is for the actual die change and the second for the datasheet revision itself:

    simba.itg.ti.com/.../20231219014

    simba.itg.ti.com/.../attachments

    Looking at the revenue tool it does look like Sonitor is a purchaser of the TLV342IRUGR through Arrow. Both PCNs were sent to Arrow and it is for the distributor to pass along the PCN to its customers.  Having said that, for some reason it looks like the list of devices on the second PCN (the one that highlights datasheet changes) only has single channel devices listed as affected, thus it is possible that a datasheet PCN was only made for single channel TLV341 & not the dual channel, TLV342, device.

    As far as the typical quiescent current (IQ) goes, it may usually vary up to +/-30% due to wafer fab sheet resistance variation but in the case of TLV342 was allowed to more than double - most likely due to the limitation of the circuit topology used.  In 2025 due to the fab process obsoletion a new die was used to replace the original one (introduced in 2005), resulting in doubling typical IQ. Thus, the fact that you still see 88uA tells me that Arrow keeps shipping you original material but it is only question of time that they will run out of old material and ship you new 150uA IQ parts. As far as alternatives go, the new material is very similar to OPA2310, OPA2383 is a lower IQ and much lower offset/drift but higher price, while TLV2314 is neither cheaper nor lower IQ than new TLV342.