> Anyone got an idea what this microprocessor is and what its specs are?

I've been very sceptical regarding this 'MC68060FE133' ever since I came across this designation on the NatAmi website and found that there're East Asian vendors offering a chip labelled like that. What's been revealed by NatAmi Team members to date is that it's not a real 68060 but a 68EC060, i.e. neither MMU nor FPU present. My suspicion has been that it's more like a relabelled MC68EC060RC75 or MC68EC060ZU75, but in a QFP package instead of PGA or TBGA, so in fact an MC68EC060FE75. There's some mention of this chip there:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=306117
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=306123

...and some mention of the MC68LC060FE75 (i.e. no FPU but with MMU):

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=433797
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=689317

1.5 years ago I asked BigGun whether they actually tested this alleged 133 MHz chip at more than 80 MHz (let alone 133 MHz):

http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/239540.html (German)

This question of mine went unanswered while he very much answered all other questions that occured in that thread before and after.
This was 2 to 3 months after they put the following pictures online, so I assumed he could answer my question:

http://www.natami.net/gfx/NAe60F/NAe60F_1.jpg
http://www.natami.net/gfx/NAe60F/NAe60F_2.jpg
http://www.natami.net/gfx/NAe60F/NAe60F_3.jpg
http://www.natami.net/gfx/NAe60F/SerMon_EC.png

So far I still think it's a faked chip designation, i.e. a 75 MHz chip that may or may not be overclockable to 133 MHz (doubtful).

Thanks Andreas.
This confirms my suspicions.
As far as I know the fastest 68060 produced was clocked at 75 Mhz.
The only companies that show a listing for this surface mount processor are Chinese.
And no one can provide spec sheets or technical data for this chip.

> 133 MIGHT mean 133mhz.

'133' DOES mean 133 MHz. Whether it's for real or a fake designation put on another (slower) chip, that's the question to be asked.

Latest quote on price of fake 68K processors:

>Dear friend ,

How are you today ?

I am glad to have the chance to help you , and our parts' details are as follongs :

MC68060FE133 MOT QFP 2008+ROHS 100PCS $16.18/pcs new original in stock

If you have any questions,please be feel free to contact me at your any time , I will try my best to help you , our company worked in this field for a long time ,and we have a lot of stocks ,so we can ship the parts to you at any time if you like .and also we can give a long warranty for all the parts we sold out .


If you have any questions ,please be feel free to contact me at your any time .

I am looking forward to hearing from you soon .

Thanks and best regards !
delia

---------------------------------------------------------
FC Contract Electronics LTD
7/11 Minerva Road
Park Royal
London
NW10 6HJ United Kingdom
NW10 6HJ
---------------------------------------------------------
TEL: +0044 2088167805

FAX +0044 8445045173

MSN:deliafc@hotmail.com

Skype :deliafccel

Email:delia.cody@fccel.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------
www.fccel.co.uk

2011-04-14

> MOT QFP 2008+ROHS

Assuming that 'MOT' means Motorola (as opposed to Freescale), the 'ROHS' claim is very interesting. And what does '2008' mean?

> NW10 6HJ United Kingdom

So it's not a Chinese supplier but a British one? On the other hand:

"FC CONTRACT ELECTRONICS LIMITED [...] now has grown into one of the leading independent IC (integrated circuits) distributors in Hongkong."
http://www.fccel.co.uk/about%20us.htm

Odd, isn't it?
ROHS is not completely impossible. I'm not sure how, but Freescale makes this claim on some of the 68Ks they sell.
'2008' is totally confusing.
And it does appear to be a Chinese distributor, regardless of the mention of the UK.

Oh, BTW, they really want to sell me these. Since I put in a requests for price quotes, I've had two negative responses and at least a half dozen offers.

Correction - I just checked, make that over a dozen offers to sell 68060FE133s.

[ Edited by Jim 14.04.2011 - 22:24 ]

> ROHS is not completely impossible. I'm not sure how, but
> Freescale makes this claim on some of the 68Ks they sell.

Freescale m68k and RoHS isn't odd at all. It's *Motorola* m68k and RoHS that's odd, as Motorola spun off Freescale in 2004 and RoHS came only in 2006.

> '2008' is totally confusing.

If that's the (alleged) year of production it's in line with the RoHS claim, but not with the mention of 'MOT'.

Absolutely correct. If they were going to make it a more believable fake they should have used a Freescale designation.
Also, aren't the FE processors an older mask? I thought they were at least one back from the final mask.

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

If it is not a BGA package RoHS compliance for devices from before 2007 is pretty possible AFAIK. Ag/Cu contacts are pretty usual and comply with RoHS. The inner of the chip should be RoHS compliant anyway. I don't think that RoHS must be warranted at production already, but at sale. I am not sure though.

> 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.