Memory vendors move a product from one fabrication node to another, correct minor process items, and keep selling it under the same marketing part number. The datasheet headline does not change. The die behind it has. For a design that was validated once and then shipped for seven years, that gap is where intermittent field failures come from.
Die revision is not a secret — it is encoded in the ordering number, if you know which character carries it. Our own cross-reference table makes the point unusually clearly, because we treat the revision as part of the specification and therefore map it to a different HGCHIPS part.
Consider the SK Hynix 8 Gbit DDR4 x8 family. Same density, same organisation, same speed bin, same package — and two different die revisions visible in one character of the marking:
| Original SK Hynix marking | Die position | What it is | HGCHIPS part |
|---|---|---|---|
| H5AN8G8NCJR-XNC | C revision | DDR4 8 Gbit 1Gx8 DDR4-3200 | HGD48G08H32 |
| H5AN8G8NDJR-XNC | D revision | DDR4 8 Gbit 1Gx8 DDR4-3200 | HGD48G08H32D |
The same device family also appears at other speed bins in our table: the C-revision part at DDR4-2933 maps to HGD48G08H29 and at DDR4-2666 to HGD48G08H26. So in the row above, the only difference between the two originals is the revision character — and our mapping gives them separate part numbers rather than treating them as one line.
That separation is a deliberate supply-chain choice, not a marketing one: it lets a customer's approved-vendor list name the exact behaviour that was tested, instead of naming a specification and hoping the next lot matches it.
The functional contract survives: command set, ball map, density, organisation, package and the advertised speed bin stay put, which is why the vendor can keep the marketing number. What moves is usually at the margins:
None of this makes a revised part "worse". It makes it different, and different parts need the same evidence to be released into the same design.
Our DDR4 cross-reference holds 30 parts: densities from 4 to 32 Gbit (8 Gbit is the bulk), speed bins DDR4-2666 (14), DDR4-3200 (13) and DDR4-2933 (3), in x8 and x16 organisations. Where the same original family appears at more than one revision, the table lists them as separate rows with separate HG part numbers — as in the example above.
Adjacent point for low-power designs: our LPDDR4 / LPDDR4X table (39 parts) records the supply-rail scheme explicitly for each part — 1.8/1.1/1.1 versus 1.8/1.1/0.6 versus 1.8/1.2/1.2 — because the rail set is a real electrical difference that a "both are LPDDR4" summary would hide.
If you want to know which side of that line a specific part number sits on, tell us the marking and we will confirm the die-revision position, the equivalent HGCHIPS part, and the test evidence that backs the comparison: send an enquiry or search in the cross-reference tool.
No — where the original manufacturer's ordering number distinguishes the revision, we map each revision to its own HGCHIPS part number, so your approved-vendor list can name exactly the behaviour that was tested. HGD48G08H32 and HGD48G08H32D in our table are an example of this.
Neither by definition. A revision is a change, and a change needs the same evidence to be released into a design that is already in production. The risk is not that new silicon is inferior — it is that an unannounced change meets an unchanged qualification file.
From the full ordering marking on the label and package, cross-checked against the supplier's per-lot records. If a source cannot tell you which revision is in the box, that is the finding to act on before the reel reaches the line.
Yes, and we will tell you which revision our part was validated against and provide samples so you can run the quick checks yourself. What we will not do is imply an equivalence we have not characterised.
Search 245 memory and 30 power part pages, or send us your BOM and get a compatibility answer within 24 business hours.
Search Cross Reference Send RFQ