Sure they will be close, but they won’t be in positions comparable to the circuit. The primary cause of this is the schematic representations primary goal is to convey the circuit intent and thus the schema used to represent the symbols are totally different:
- OPAMPS are triangle with inputs on the left and output on the right.
While the PCB layout is more concerned with physical realization and constrained by packaging. Now if every circuit symbol was closer to their physical chip representation then yes such placement at the micro level would make sense but then the circuit would be harder to read (although… auto-routing would be easier …)
A perfect example of this is your typical buck regulator, say… TPS563211
or more specifically:
The circuit orientation make schematic capture flow well and you can clearly see the intent
The “recommended layout”
Night and day difference because there are additional constraints (where the pins are, minimizing loop area w.r.t. switching etc…)
The same goes for analogue, even using dual packages. Sure the parts will be within 1-2cm of each other but that is pretty much their only relationship with regards to circuit and layout placement.
Now general placement to group by macro function… that is useful: PSU block in top-left, FPGA in the middle, ADC type subcircuits on the left, DAC type subcircuits on the right etc…