Original Part
Transceiver, Non-Inverting 2 Element 8 Bit per Element 3-State Output 48-SSOP
Alternative Part
Transceiver, Non-Inverting 2 Element 8 Bit per Element 3-State Output 48-TSSOP
Transceiver, Non-Inverting 2 Element 8 Bit per Element 3-State Output 48-TSSOP
1. 74FCT162H245ATPACT Substitution Conclusion
From the perspective of core logic functionality and key electrical parameters, this part is a direct functional replacement for the original component. Both are 16-bit non-inverting tri-state transceivers with identical supply voltage ranges (4.5-5.5V) and output drive capabilities (24mA). The primary difference lies in the package: the original part uses a wider 48-SSOP (7.50mm body width), whereas this TI part is housed in a narrower 48-TSSOP (6.10mm body width). Consequently, the two packages are physically pin-incompatible and cannot be directly soldered onto the existing PCB footprints. A board layout redesign is mandatory to accommodate the new package dimensions and pin pitch. Furthermore, the "H" in the part number typically denotes TI's "FCT-H" series, which may offer superior dynamic performance (e.g., propagation delay, edge rates) compared to the original "FCT" series. This constitutes a performance enhancement and is unlikely to cause compatibility issues in most applications; in fact, it may contribute to improved signal integrity.
2. 74FCT162H245CTPACT Substitution Conclusion
The substitution conclusion for this part is identical to that for the ATPACT variant discussed above. It is a direct functional replacement from an electrical standpoint but shares the same physical package incompatibility. The same 48-TSSOP (6.10mm) vs. 48-SSOP (7.50mm) package discrepancy exists, necessitating a PCB redesign. The minor differences between this CTPACT part and the ATPACT part from the same manufacturer—typically relating to operating temperature range or slight electrical performance binning (e.g., "A" grade parts may have tighter timing or drive specifications)—are irrelevant for the purpose of replacing the original component. Both variants meet the fundamental requirements (voltage, current, logic function). The choice between CTPACT and ATPACT primarily depends on the specific requirements for the internal grading of the TI device, not on substitution feasibility.
Analysis ID: E462-A6C2000
Based on part parameters and for reference only. Not to be used for procurement or production.
SkyChip © 2026, Email: sales@skychip.com