> aren't the FE processors an older mask? I thought
> they were at least one back from the final mask.

Good question. Information on (genuine) 060FE chips is scarce. But I believe those are all EC060FE or LC060FE, no full 060FE. If we assume that this is true then the 060FE chips can't be 71E41J mask, as this latest mask was only applied to full 060 chips.
The "68060FE133" on one of the NatAmi CPU cards reads "5G59Y" mask. That's what a search brings up:

http://www.cpu-world.com/mot_masks/5/5G59Y.html

A search for just "G59Y" gives this:

http://www.freescale.com/files/shared/doc/pcn/PCN2378.html

So this mask only hints at LC060 and EC060 chips. But then, we knew that already ;-)
And if they faked the designation on the chip they could as well have faked the mask label to whatever they thought would look plausible.

> I think I'll send in an inquiry to Freescale.

Good idea, if they don't know, nobody would know.

So far, nothing useful. Just this...

>Who sent you the email? If the email was from an unauthorized distributor or broker, please be aware that Freescale does not support the unauthorized resale of Freescale products.

No statement on the designation. I've replied asking for confirmation that this is an illegitimate identifier.

The latest offer.
U$7.693 /1pc

Edit - Latest comment from Freescale.

>I can confirm that MC68060FE133 is not a valid Freescale part number. I cannot speculate about what the devices you were offered might actually be.

[ Edited by Jim 15.04.2011 - 01:44 ]

Apparently the price for imaginary 133Mhz 68060 processors is falling!

>The quotation of "MC68060FE133" from CENTRON ELECTRONICS CO
The mail was transmitted by THEICSTOCK.COM.If you want to reply it through e-mail,please send e-mial to"webmaster@centrondz.com .me@centrondz.com".
Part Number MC68060FE133
Needed Quantity: 100
Remark:
Quotation of CENTRON ELECTRONICS CO and his contact method
Part Number: MC68060FE133
Quantity 100
Unit Price: USD3.50
Remark: It is my pleasure to offer you as followings, pls kindly let me know if you are interested, Pls dont hesitate to contact me if you have any question. Hope we could start our business soonest.
E-mail :
webmaster@centrondz.com .me@centrondz.com
Telephone: 86-755-61329018
Contact person: DANY LIN
Country: China(Mainland)

$3.50 for a 133Mhz Surface Mount 68060 (that Freescale says doesn't exist)!

> Latest comment from Freescale.
>> I can confirm that MC68060FE133 is not a valid Freescale part number.
>> I cannot speculate about what the devices you were offered might actually be.

Thanks. So that's the official confirmation of what we've suspected all along. As I said I'm inclined to believe that they are most likely relabelled MC68EC060FE75 chips.

As the prices range between $3.50 and $16.50 I inclined to believe that only some of these are functional processor. Even without an FPU and an MMu a 75Mhx 68060 is a good buy at $16.50.
The $3.50 components are less likely to be functional.
If some of these are re-marked MC68EC060FE75 processor and they function, I could see a few uses for them.

As far as I know, most Amiga's don't come with a MMU. That lack of an FPU is more serious.
But considering the low cost, these components might be useful for an low cost Amiga upgrade.

If I can get the specs on the package (pinouts etc.) I may buy a couple to play with.

> I inclined to believe that only some of these are functional
> processor. Even without an FPU and an MMu a 75Mhx 68060 is a
> good buy at $16.50. The $3.50 components are less likely to
> be functional.

Yes, that they'd send you MC68EC060FE75 chips is the most positive assumption. The most negative one is that you'd just get bricks ;-) It would be interesting to know what the NatAmi Team paid for the "MC68060FE133" labelled chips two years ago as those are at least functional and tested at up to 80 MHz.

> As far as I know, most Amiga's don't come with a MMU.
> That lack of an FPU is more serious.

All 060 accelerator boards for Amiga come with an MMU. And all of them except one (75 MHz version of the Apollo 1260, i.e. with LC060) come with an FPU. Lack of FPU means you can't use 060 optimized software that requires an FPU but must resort to soft float 020 or 030 builds in such cases.

>All 060 accelerator boards for Amiga come with an MMU. And all of them except one (75 MHz version of the Apollo 1260, i.e. with LC060) come with an FPU. Lack of FPU means you can't use 060 optimized software that requires an FPU but must resort to soft float 020 or 030 builds in such cases.

So it can be done. Floating point takes a significant hit, but MMU is not 100% necessary.
A lower cost accelerator that would be priced like an '030 but preform netter might be possible.

@Jim,

Who sent you that reply from Freescale about the 133MHz mask being a fictional product?

Could it be a Motorola product that was made in limited quantities toward the end of the companies lifespan, before Freescale took over, and Freescale just doesn't have the info about those chips? I am still unsure & curious about the "Official" status of these chips and what they actually are. I wonder if the Natami team members have any other information about these chips, since they appear to have purchased several of them at some time in the past.

Edit: I think that most people that want the power of a fast 060, would also want both a functioning FPU and MMU (I know I would).

[ Edited by amigadave 15.04.2011 - 22:54 ]

> Could it be a Motorola product that was made in limited quantities
> toward the end of the companies lifespan, before Freescale took over,
> and Freescale just doesn't have the info about those chips?

Not likely to my mind. Apart from the financial and organizational issues that spinning off entails, Motorola Semiconductor outright turned into Freescale, including its engineers and (internal and external) documentation. That's why today you can still find old Motorola Semiconductor documents on the Freescale website for some of their products which go back to the Motorola age.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afreescale.com+motorola+filetype%3Apdf

Yes, Andres is correct here. Freescale IS Motorola Semiconductor. They would be privy to all information abot past and present production.
And they've clearly stated that the MC68060FE133 designation is false.
Further, in a later response the same technical support agent reaffirmed that the highest clocjked 68060s run at 75Mhz.

> Freescale IS Motorola Semiconductor.

Exactly. It seems amigadave believes that an older than 2004 company called Freescale once bought Motorola Semiconductor:

"Motorola was taken over by Freescale"
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=631955

That would explain why he believes that Freescale maybe doesn't know about every old Motorola Semiconductor's products.

No, its a straight spin off. I wouldn't be surprise to find that Motorola still held a partial stake in the company.

> No, its a straight spin off.

*I* know that :-)

> I wouldn't be surprise to find that Motorola still held a partial stake in the company.

They did for some months:
http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=831749

And 2 years later was this:
http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=905906

And now this:
http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1567938

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 03.06.2011 - 18:26 ]

Addendum:

> It would be interesting to know what the NatAmi Team paid for the
> "MC68060FE133" labelled chips two years ago as those are at least
> functional and tested at up to 80 MHz.

No information on what they paid for it but interesting nonetheless:

"the 68060FE chips on the FE CPU card are brand new CPUs directly from a hardware supplier in China"
http://www.natami.net/knowledge.php?b=1¬e=39258&x=1

I take it "brand new" means "NOS" here ;-) And now for the most interesting statement from another Natami Team member in the same thread:

"the chines chips are not clones per se, (IMHO) but license produced copies of the Motorola design."

I have severe doubts about that claim. Wouldn't Freescale know about such license and be open about the existence of such?

Quote:

No, that is not what I believe. Taken over, spun off, splintered from, they all serve to mean the same thing in terms of which company now is in control of CPU production.

Quote:

In large companies, rarely does any one person know all the history of previous products and licenses, and who knows how much time the Freescale employee providing the information posted, spent researching a question that is of no importance to him.

It appears to be a favorite pass time of the two of you to speculate and come to conclusions and then post them ALMOST like they are facts, or at least like they are the most likely probabilities, which I find amusing and naive, even when they are educated and well researched guesses and once in a great while turn out to be correct.

I am not knocking the practice, as it appears to entertain the two of you, and probably a few others, but forgive me for not getting sucked into believing every speculation, or conclusion that either you or Jim post on these forums.

> No, that is not what I believe.

Then what is it you believe happened to Motorola Semiconductor in 2004? And what is it you believe how Freescale started?

> Taken over, spun off, splintered from, they all serve to mean the same
> thing in terms of which company now is in control of CPU production.

We've been talking about *how* Freescale got control of Motorola Semiconductor's CPU production as that's what might be relevant for the availability of certain documentation (or alleged lack thereof) within Freescale.

> In large companies, rarely does any one person know all the history
> of previous products and licenses

Don't try to change what your question I replied to was about. It was *not* about "any one person". Quote:

"Could it be [...] Freescale just doesn't have the info about those chips?"

You were clearly talking about Freescale as a whole here, not about "any one person" within. Besides, nobody here ever implied that "any one person know all the history of previous products and licenses". That's what internal databases are for that are accessible by employees who want to retrieve certain information they don't know by heart yet need for their work.

> who knows how much time the Freescale employee providing the information
> posted, spent researching a question that is of no importance to him.

I don't know how seriously he takes his job but I'm more inclined to take his statement ("I can confirm that MC68060FE133 is not a valid Freescale part number.") for fact than your baseless speculation that Jim's question was "of no importance to him" which might have made him not doing proper research.

> It appears to be a favorite pass time of the two of you to speculate and come to
> conclusions and then post them ALMOST like they are facts, or at least like they
> are the most likely probabilities

It *is* a hard cold fact, not speculation (or even conclusion), that a Freescale employee stated that "MC68060FE133" was not a valid Freescale part number. I see no reason to not believe him (which of course also means I believe Jim didn't make up that answer).
As for my general posting habit (I speak only for myself here obviously), I always try hard to make sure that speculation and conclusions of mine are clearly recognizable as such and cannot be mistaken for a statement of fact (not even "ALMOST") by anybody who's able to read properly. And I certainly wouldn't know what's wrong about posting educated guesses and conclusions like they are "the most likely probabilities".

> which I find amusing and naive

I find it amusing and naive to speculate that Jim's inquiry might have been "of no importance" to the Freescale employee so that the latter went without doing proper research.

> even when they are educated and well researched guesses

It seems you don't like educated and well researched guesses more than non-educated and badly researched guesses like those of yours. Why's that?

> and once in a great while turn out to be correct.

Guessing involves being wrong from time to time. I see no problem with that as long as the guesses are posted as what they are.

> forgive me for not getting sucked into believing every speculation,
> or conclusion that either you or Jim post on these forums.

It's only *your* speculation and/or conclusion that a Freescale employee might not have done proper research before replying to Jim's inquiry.

I am certain, after researching it, that these are re-labeled chips.
Freescale has complete control over Motorola Semiconductor IP and would e aware of any licensing scheme. And their reps have made an absolute statement regarding the part number.
Further, there are no technical documents covering this invalid part number.

The only speculation posted was the possible original part numbers for these processors (MC68EC060FE75), but its a logical conclusion considering the packaging of the "MC68060FE133".

> I am certain, after researching it, that these are re-labeled chips.

So what do you think of the Natami Team member's claim that the "MC68060FE133" labelled chips are "license produced copies of the Motorola design"?

> Freescale [...] would e aware of any licensing scheme.

That's my suspicion as well.

>So what do you think of the Natami Team member's claim that the "MC68060FE133" labeled chips are "license produced copies of the Motorola design"?

Obviously, they're wrong. As you pointed out.

>> Freescale [...] would e aware of any licensing scheme.

>That's my suspicion as well.

I'm not sure why anyone would defend that position "license produced copies of the Motorola design"

The IP holder states that the chip designation is false. Period.

No speculation there. Just a simple statement. There are no 133Mhz 68060 chips.

> Obviously, they're wrong. As you pointed out.

Actually, I just stated my severe doubts. That's not quite the same as stating they're wrong.

> I'm not sure why anyone would defend that position
> "license produced copies of the Motorola design"

It could be that for the public perception of the Natami project using "license produced copies of the Motorola design" sounds better than using "illegally relabelled Motorola chips" ;-)

> No speculation there.

It seems that this is not acknowledged by all participants of this thread ;-)

>> No speculation there.

>It seems that this is not acknowledged by all participants of this thread

So i noticed, and I'm a little disappointed.

We speculate here all the time, but this is not one of those times.

I have dealt with Motorola/Freescale technical support since the 8 bit days (when they provided me with 6829MMU samples).

Their statement was as terse as I've relayed. They had no idea what I was being offered, but the designation was not a valid component number.

I doubt Thomas and the Natami team will seriously consider this component for production because we are talking about "illegally relabeled Motorola chips".

> I'm a little disappointed.

I am not. You can only be dissapointed if you had any expectations beforehand ;-)

> I doubt Thomas and the Natami team will seriously consider this component for
> production because we are talking about "illegally relabeled Motorola chips".

Could it be that they not only claim but also truly believe those chips to be "license produced copies of the Motorola design"? If yes, why would they shy away from using this component for production?

>Could it be that they not only claim but also truly believe those chips to be "license produced copies of the Motorola design"? If yes, why would they shy away from using this component for production?

There I go again with my over estimates of other people.
Yes, they very well could believe that their Chinese knock offs are real.
And the price for these things is so low that they might find them attractive.

> Yes, they very well could believe that their Chinese knock offs are real.

So it boils down to this: Knowing liars or truthful fools? Take your bet ;-)

Quote:

I did not mean to offend you Jim, but given your previous track record of making statements and later retracting some of them and the lack of knowing who this Freescale representative is, I stil stand by everything I wrote in my last message in this thread.

There is a very real possibility that there is/was a license to a Chinese company that would not show up in any (part number) database (which is very likely the only kind of database the Freescale Rep. looked at), and with that license, the Chinese company could have produced 680x0 products (and labled them anything they wanted, but thought made sense) that were also never put into any Motorola, or Freescale (part number) databases. All that would be required in such a license, would be the legal use of the Motorola name on the Chinese chips, and the 680x0 designs.

My speculation is no less valid than yours or the Wolfman's, but evidently he does not like being called on his, due to his anal tendencies (which does not surprise me at all). I don't really care enough about this topic one way or the other, but thought a shred of doubt should be put back into the topic of what these chips really are, as no one has proof yet.

[ Edited by amigadave 03.06.2011 - 17:03 ]