> Pricing on EOL products is unjustifiably high.

I'm afraid that the Freescale produced MC68EC060RC66 which Rochester Electronics sells with a 2009 production code isn't significantly cheaper.

Maybe its just Rochester Electronics' pricing then.

I've sent a few inquiries to Chinese firms, but since I can't gaurantee the authenticity of anything they quote this may be pointless.

> Maybe its just Rochester Electronics' pricing then.

Probably not. What I wanted to convey is that the high price can't have anything to do with "EOL" when non-EOL'd parts (like the Freescale produced MC68EC060RC66) are not significantly cheaper than EOL'd parts.

Need I mention that any patents that existed on the 68060 have expired? Anybody with the time, inclination, and production capacity can produce 68060's now.

Samurai_Crow,
Quote:

How? Its not like the actual circuitry is known. We have some idea of how its organized, and how its programmed, but how would you build the actual chip?


[ Edited by Jim 15.06.2011 - 03:48 ]

> Need I mention that any patents that existed on the 68060 have expired?

Yes, you absolutely need to as the 68060 was introduced 17 years ago while patents are usually valid for 20 years.

> Anybody with the time, inclination, and production capacity can produce 68060's now.

I think you're tremendously underestimating what it takes to exactly reimplement a chip (i.e. real one to one copy, not mere functional reimplementation in an FPGA) of the 68060's complexity without access to original data.

First Chinese price quote on MC68EC060RC75.

>Product #:MC68EC060RC75

Price: US $49.60/pc

Date Code# : 2002+

Make: MOT

Not quite as low as "FE133" but still more reasonable then Rochester.

Edit: Second quote.

>MC68EC060RC75 MOT, PGA PRICE is USD 15.5/PCS BULK NEW

shipping cost by CHINA POST is USD 10.0 for 0.5KG. It will take about 3-4weeks from China to USA


[ Edited by Jim 15.06.2011 - 03:57 ]

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:
Sorry, my math was off by 3 years. Please disregard.

Quote:
While generally I feel rather good, sometimes there are these little things that make me feel old - 17 years!. But maybe the little pain in my right knee from today's 100+ cycling round adds to that feeling.

Some ludicrous claims regarding the "MC68060FE133":

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.a1k.org/forum/showpost.php?p=436022

The 75 MHz Apollo 1260 has an MC68LC060FE75 (i.e. with MMU), not an underclocked MC68(EC)060FE133.

Update:

> From a NatAmi Team member in the previously linked thread:
> "It's currently running stable at 120mhz."

Seems they now use to run it at only 110 MHz instead of the successfully tested 120 MHz, let alone the 133 MHz the chip marking suggests:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=677079

Not having kept up with all posts on the Natami site, is there any other info that would indicate that other components of the Natami (like the speed of the RAM chips) might be the limiting factor in overclocking the 060's? I thought I remembered reading something from one of the main developers on the Natami team that said that there was another component that prevented him from pushing his 060 to a higher clock rate.

[ Edited by amigadave 23.01.2012 - 16:38 ]

Regardless of how much above spec they push the CPU clock, without a math co-processor this CPU is going to be incompatible with some software.

> From Freescale on April 4th 2011.
> >Dear James Igou,
> >In reply to your message regarding Service Request SR 1-737352976:
> >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.
> >Should you need to contact us with regard to this message, please see the notes below.
> >Best Regards,
> >Eric
> >Technical Information & Commercial Support
> >Freescale Semiconductor
> [...]
> Further, in a later response the same technical support agent reaffirmed
> that the highest clocjked 68060s run at 75Mhz.

Seems as if another inquirer might have got a different response:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=746966

This place sells three different models of the MC68060FE133.

http://www.utsource.net/mc68060fe133.html

> This place sells three different models of the MC68060FE133.
> http://www.utsource.net/mc68060fe133.html

Yes, they may sell chips bearing this designation right on the chip, but what this thread has been about is what chips bearing this designation actually are and where they come from. We know these are actually 68EC060 chips (missing both FPU and MMU), so the '68060' designation is nonsense already. And the NatAmi team claimed they could run it stable at 120 MHz yet decided to downclock it even more to 110 MHz. So far, I'm not aware of any proof that the '68060FE133' is a genuine part and not just an overclocked and mislabelled 68EC060FE75.

I would have to second Andreas on this.
Freescale states bluntly that no '060 designed to be operated above 75MHz was ever produced.

Quote:

Your assumption might be correct, but I would not conclude that the linked comment means that he received a different response from Freescale. I doubt that the linked message is anything more than his personal opinion of what Freescale "knows", or does not "know". That comment in his message looks like nothing more than speculation and common sense.

Of course at least one person at Freescale has probably seen the MC68060FE133 chips advertized at one time or another. To think that no one at Freescale has ever read about or heard about those (probably re-badged) chips, would be very naive.

> I've sent a few inquiries to Chinese firms, but since I can't gaurantee
> the authenticity of anything they quote this may be pointless.

Some interesting experience reports:

http://warpclassic68k.blogspot.com/2014/04/mc68060fe133-eng.html
http://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/CT60/fake/

Btw:

"LAST BUY DATE: 21-Nov-2014
LAST SHIP DATE: 21-Nov-2015"
http://www.freescale.com/files/shared/doc/pcn/PCN15939.htm

So...are we done speculating about this phony part number yet?
Andreas had this pegged a long time ago.

[ Edited by Jim 31.07.2014 - 10:21 ]

> are we done speculating about this phony part number yet?

Yes, I think we are done speculating about that.

> Andreas had this pegged a long time ago.

True, but this doesn't mean we can't revive this thread with some links to reports from people who tried to buy full 68060 chips with this and other part numbers from the Chinese, does it?

>True, but this doesn't mean we can't revive this thread with some links to reports from people who tried to buy full 68060 chips with this and other part numbers from the Chinese, does it?

Nope, that was great fun!
Faith dies hard amongst Amigans.
The Chinese didn't get MY money with this scam.

Good work! This was an interesting read.

Quote:

That was a fascinating group of events, wasn't it?

Its also yet another example of Andreas' research abilities.
He had the 'FE133' pegged as an late revision LC or EC awhile ago (not to mention pointing to Freescale's E5500 cored products before introduction - years before A-eon decided to incorporate those into their products).

I place great faith in his ability to 'get it right'.

> He had the 'FE133' pegged as an late revision LC or EC awhile ago

Yes, EC, because neither MMU nor FPU present.

> pointing to Freescale's E5500 cored products before introduction

As you know, I learned of the e5500 core just few hours before official introduction. Subsequently, I learned of the P5010 and P5020 not before their official introduction.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=6313&start=13
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7001&start=217
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7183&start=181
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=9072&start=11