2 Replies Latest reply on Oct 3, 2017 1:45 AM by piotr.wyderski_2406846

    Why there are no small PSOCs?

    piotr.wyderski_2406846

      How does Cypress explain the lack of PSOC3/5LP devices in the packages smaller than as big as they can have, i.e. QFN68 and TQFP100? The leadless packages such as QFN (3/5LP) or BGA (6+) are a guaranteed route to a disaster due to the lack of thermal strain relieve mechanism, while the gull wings have all the necessary springs, hence they are my only choice in high-rel/mid-rel applications. But then the only option on the table is TQFP100, which is way too big in many applications. I've just had to design PSOCs out of two projects just because there is no TQFP32 or 48 version of the chips. Microchip has many of their MCUs available in packages ranging from QFN down to DIP40 with the same chip inside.  The same issue prevents me from ever considering PSOC6s in any of my designs, BTW.

        • 1. Re: Why there are no small PSOCs?
          paje

          We didn’t get too many requests for smaller packages for the PSOC 3/5LP devices in the past and hence did not create the same. Since this is an old product, we dont see Cypress creating new packages for these. You should be able to find smaller package options in PSoC 4 or new PSoC 6 families. Which package is of prime interest for you and your application? The QFN or DIP?

          • 2. Re: Why there are no small PSOCs?
            piotr.wyderski_2406846

            It's a sad news to hear that the 5LP series is considered old. I'd say it is the only useful part in your portfolio. PSOC3 is based on MCS51, the resource-deprived PSOC4 looks like a joke, PSOC6 is extremely disappointing (still no Ethernet MAC, removed the useful blocks like the DFB, only the BGA packages). The most useful combination for me would be a 5888/5688 in TQFP32 and TQFP64. Both.