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 ]

> I stil stand by everything I wrote in my last message in this thread.

I'm looking forward to you addressing the points I made in my reply to that message.

> 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.

Would such license even go as far as allowing the Chinese brokers to claim "Motorola" as the chips' manufacturer and allowing the Chinese manufacturer to falsely designate the chips as having both MMU and FPU when in fact it has none?

> My speculation is no less valid than yours or the Wolfman's, but
> evidently he does not like being called on his

Actually, your evidence is flawed as I *love* being called on what I write. It must have to do with the old "do unto others..." saying I guess.

> due to his anal tendencies

Now that's funny. You dismiss my (and Jim's) speculations and conclusions only to come up with your own speculations and conclusions (which are in no way making any more sense than ours) about this topic which you say you're not really interested in, and yet dare to call me "anal".

> no one has proof yet.

What I would accept as proof is running those alleged 133 MHz chips reliably at 133 MHz (or more), not just at about 80 MHz, which also a 75 MHz part can do easily.

Update:

> 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."

Now he says that he finds it "just a little weird that it is not in Freescales catalogue".

http://www.natami.net/knowledge.php?b=1¬e=39258&x=2

Why does he find that weird now when he said before that those chips were "license produced copies of the Motorola design", which very much implies that they wouldn't have to be in Freescale's catalogue?

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

Repeat - MC68060FE133 is not a valid Freescale part number.

So there is no speculation on my part in this. Freescale (which owns all Motorola Semiconductor IP) has never heard of this part and has no idea what Chinese vendors are offering me.
The highest speed 68060 is 75 Mhz and is still listed on their website.

While I have no problem retracting statements made due to incorrect speculation, there is no speculation here at all.So in this matter both AmigaDave and the Natami team members are mistaken.
Not might be, they are.

[ Edited by Jim 04.06.2011 - 05:20 ]

This is just a waste of time, so this is my last reply to this thread.

The claim that these chips are "Relabled" Motorola, or Freescale parts of a slower speed is nothing but speculation. No proof has been provided that Motorola never granted a license to any company in China, or any other country to reproduce their 680x0 designs and label them using the Motorola trademark. Another possibility is that some Chinese company created these without a valid license, but that would require stealing the designs, or reverse engineering them. I understand that the burden of proof is on me IF I WERE TRYING TO PROVE THAT THERE WERE A LICENSE, but I am not. All I have stated is that there is an element of doubt regarding the claims that these chips are illegal clones, or rebranded slower chips. PERIOD. I never stated that these were Freescale parts Jim, so you are in error telling me that I am mistaken, or wrong about these chips. I have never stated what they are, only that there is no proof one way or the other about what they are (other than that they are not Freescale parts and most likely not genuine Motorola parts). If you claims had stopped there and not gone into the realm of claiming that they are, or probably are, rebadged slower Motorola, or Freescale parts, I would not have had any disagreement with you.

That there is doubt and alternative possibilities, is/was the only intent I had in making any of the statements I have made in this thread. Since it is mostly impossible to prove a negative, regarding the existence or lack of a license to produce these chips, I don't see this argument ever being resolved and won't waste any more of my time and this site's bandwidth on this stupid argument.

[ Edited by amigadave 04.06.2011 - 11:06 ]

> No proof has been provided that Motorola never granted a license to
> any company in China, or any other country to reproduce their 680x0
> designs and label them using the Motorola trademark.

...as well as the Motorola/Freescale naming scheme in such a misleading way that it implies the incorporation of both an MMU and FPU when in fact they have none.

> If you claims had stopped there and not gone into the realm of claiming
> that they are, or probably are, rebadged slower Motorola, or Freescale
> parts, I would not have had any disagreement with you.

I stand by my assessment that they probably are rebadged slower Motorola/Freescale parts.

> Since it is mostly impossible to prove a negative, regarding the
> existence or lack of a license to produce these chips, I don't see
> this argument ever being resolved

Assuming a Freescale representative said that there has never been any such license granted by either Freescale or Motorola Semiconductor I'd be inclined to accept this as proof of the non-existence of such license. Until then I won't change my opinion that I find the existence of such license highly improbable.

Never mind, found it!

[ Edited by boot_wb 04.06.2011 - 21:18 ]

I'm not sure why David want to side with the improbable, but that is his right.
Other improbable scenarios?
First that the Chinese reverse engineered the 68060. Hitachi managed to reverse engineer the 6809 when they produced the 6309, but the Chinese haven't got a lot to motivate them to attempt this.
Second, that Motorola would license their product and that their spun off successor would be unaware of the arrangement.
Third, that the Chinese would be allowed to produce chips beginning with the MC designation indicating Motorola manufacture.

I don't see any other viable answer to the origin of these chips other then their being re-labeled 75Mhz components.

Quote:

I'm not sure that the 'MC' designation would be so controlled. Motorolla produced MC68xxx, PC68xxx and XC68xxx chips before the freescale era.
The 'trademark' in question is more the big 'M' - a copyrighted Motorolla trademark.

The confusing thing for me is - why would anyone bother reverse engineering a 68060? They weren't massively popular on the desktop (Draco and top expansions aside - there were no native Apple 68060 based machines), there are a few switches out there based on ec060s, and probably some small segment of the embedded market (68K is still popular).
But there was no era of dominance for 68060 (therefore no massive market to support with spares, no massive embedded firmware/reference design library (specific to 68060) to support) - and any market requiring a higher-end 68060 would have quickly moved on to PPC.

So where's the market? What justifies development of a higher-clocked 68060 in >2008?

[ Edited by boot_wb 05.06.2011 - 12:47 ]

@ boot_wb

Excellent point.
What would be their possible motivation?
There isn't one.

> What justifies development of a higher-clocked 68060 in >2008?

Let's not forget that the "MC68060FE133" chip on the NatAmi CPU board reads "0238" which translates to "manufactured in 38th week of year 2002". But then this wouldn't mean much if this chip is rebadged (which I think it is) or produced without a valid license (which I doubt).
It would be interesting to see what the manufacturing date print is on the alleged "2008" production year chips that were offered to Jim. If they're produced under valid license (which I doubt) the manufacturing date print would have to be genuine, wouldn't it?

Andreas, you'll love this:

There's an uncited mention on Wikipedia:

Quote:

How far are you willing to go to find out? E-mailing the author of the page for more information?

"Work frequency 50, 60, 66, 75 MHz"

Over-clocked variants exist at 100/133 MHz (partly in connection with water cooling)

[citation needed]

The use of the word variants makes this inaccurate.

Wikipedia once again proves to be a purveyor of unsupported assertions. "Citation needed"

Frankly, I've never heard of an overclock above 100Mhz (but then Andreas might have).

133Mhz under water cooling? Liquid nitrogen, maybe.

> There's an uncited mention on Wikipedia

Interesting. This line was added to the English article about a year ago as a translated import from the German article (which has it since October 2006), where it reads (proper English translation from me):

"Over-clocked variants at 100/133 MHz are said to exist (partly in connection with water cooling)"

Notice the (not so) subtle difference from the line in the English article? :-)
Request for backing was then rightfully added to the English article in November 2010. The German article while missing a backup for this line as well never had such request, though.

> How far are you willing to go to find out? E-mailing the author of
> the page for more information?

Sure, I could ask the Wikipedian who changed "said to exist" to "exist" in his attempt to import and translate the line from one article to the other for his reasons to do this. Or I could ask the other Wikipedian who originally put the (more qualified) line in the German article for his source. However, I won't do neither ;-)

> The use of the word variants makes this inaccurate.

Yes, "over-clocked variants" makes no sense at all. Overclocking does not create variants of a chip. The use of the word "partly" is nonsensical as well.
But this all has nothing to do with the "MC68060FE133" as this designation means it's supposed to be a genuine 133 MHz part and the manufacturer guarantees that it runs at 133 MHz *without* overclocking. And while I suspect this chip to be an illegally rebadged 75 MHz Motorola/Freescale part I have doubts that it's able to run reliably at 133 MHz even if watercooled. If at all, the line in question supports the suspicion that the "MC68060FE133" is not a stock 133 MHz part and thus a relabelled slower part.

> I've never heard of an overclock above 100Mhz (but then Andreas might have).

Indeed, I have:

"The 060 Rev.6 is guaranted for 90 MHz and can run at 100 MHz in 90% of cases and 105 MHz in some cases."
http://www.powerphenix.com/CT60/english/overview63.htm

"The world record is 108 MHz without CTPCI . Mine is at 105 Mhz + CTPCI and with the standard CT63 low profile cooler..."
http://www.powerphenix.com/CTPCI/english/Historical.htm

Benchmark results at 105 MHz:
http://didierm.pagesperso-orange.fr/ct60/benchs4.htm
http://didierm.pagesperso-orange.fr/ct60/benchs5.htm