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

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Wow, did you learn English from a Yorkshireman by any chance?

> Wow, did you learn English from a Yorkshireman by any chance? ;-)

I'm easily confused over the concept of double negation in English language ;-) Or did you refer to anything else?

No hidden meaning, it's just that you're English is always excellent.

That particular double-negative phrase is quite commonly used here, at least in the part of Yorkshire I'm from anyway - almost part of the dialect. It's just endearing to see it used in written form. I couldn't help but read it with a Yorkshire accent in mind.

The only possibility I can think of is it's a clone. China is pretty well known for being "less than strict" with IP laws. Illegal cloning goes on a lot and if there's a market for the 060 somewhere they may have done it to.

Chips end up in all sorts of weird and wonderful places (e.g. the G4 was popular in imaging systems at one point) so who knows, the 060 might be popular in a specific niche.

> The only possibility I can think of is it's a clone. [...] Illegal cloning goes on a
> lot and if there's a market for the 060 somewhere they may have done it to.

What's militating against a relabelled MC68EC060FE75 in your opinion?

Just to clear up Jim's misconception that I think that these CPU's are anything other than what he thinks they are, I would like to state clearly that I don't know what they are and believe his "speculation" that they are most likely to be rebadged slower Motorola parts.

Again, for the sake of repetition and clarity, the only point I was trying to make is that there is no proof what they are and I find it amusing how much speculation Jim and Andreas do on this site. It appears to be one of their favorite activities, and there is nothing wrong with it, but I don't accept as fact their conclusions, when they do not have concrete proof to back up their speculative guesses.

In the interest of helping them out I have sent the following emails to half a dozen MC68060FE133 suppliers, in an attempt to find more information about the origin of these CPU chips.

"Attention (insert name of company representative),

I am interested in purchasing "MC68060FE133" CPU's, which (insert company name here) are listed as suppliers of, but I need more information regarding these chips. I have been unable to confirm these part numbers from the Motorola/Freescale parts databases, and the current Freescale representatives cannot confirm the origin of these CPU parts, as they do not appear to be original Motorola, or Freescale parts.

Could you please send me the technical specifications of these CPU parts and confirm their original manufacturer. My project requirements include the need for both the MMU and FPU being included within this CPU design, so this must be confirmed prior to making a purchase agreement. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
David W. Morris
Efficient by Design"

We shall see what kind of responses are sent to me within the next week or two. There are dozens of suppliers listed for the MC68060FE133 part number. Some suppliers have a few hundred chips in stock and a couple claim to have over 10,000 in stock. If those numbers are true and accurate, what is more likely, that they are rebadged chips, or that they are clones of the 68060 design? Over 90% of the suppliers appear to be Chinese companies, which would support the possibility that these chips might be Chinese manufactured clones, as minator suggested. It would also make sense that when cloning the 68060, it would be easier to create a clone without the MMU and FPU included in the cloned chip, as it would be that much less work to create a quick clone of only the rest of the 68060's design, without the MMU and FPU, than it would be to include them, or perhaps the cloning process was faulty and the MMU and FPU just do not work. Lots of possibilities, but who knows if we will ever know which ones are correct? At this point it is all "speculation and guesses".

[ Edited by amigadave 05.06.2011 - 17:36 ]

> I find it amusing how much speculation Jim and Andreas do on this site.
> [...] but I don't accept as fact their conclusions, when they do not have
> concrete proof to back up their speculative guesses.

It's in the nature of guesses and speculations that they come without concrete proof, else they wouldn't be (educated) guesses or speculations but pure facts, and as long as guesses and speculations are marked as such (which I did) there should be no problem at all.

> I have sent the following emails to half a dozen MC68060FE133 suppliers,
> in an attempt to find more information about the origin of these CPU chips.

Thanks for the effort. However, I doubt very much that they're going to admit these to be rebadged chips or unlicensed clones even if they are. I'm anxious to read their replies though.

> "[...] My project requirements include the need for both the
> MMU and FPU being included within this CPU design, so this
> must be confirmed prior to making a purchase agreement.[...]"

Just in case you missed it, we already know for fact that those chips lack both MMU and FPU:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=7819&start=2

> Some suppliers have a few hundred chips in stock and a couple claim to have
> over 10,000 in stock. If those numbers are true and accurate, what is more
> likely, that they are rebadged chips, or that they are clones of the 68060 design?

I'd say it doesn't speak for or against either possibility

> over 90% of them appear to be Chinese companies, which would support
> the possibility that these chips might be Chinese manufactured clones, as
> minator suggested.

Just to add that it's *unlicensed* clones he suggested. Besides, in my opinion this equally hints at the possibility that these chips are rebadged slower original Motorola/Freescale parts where the rebadging is done by one or more Chinese outfits and distributed through various Chinese suppliers who might or might not be aware of the deception.

> It would also make sense that when cloning the 68060, it would be easier to
> create a clone without the MMU and FPU included in the cloned chip, as it
> would be that much less work to create a quick clone of only the rest of the
> 68060's design, without the MMU and FPU, than it would be to include them, or
> perhaps the cloning process was faulty and the MMU and FPU just do not work.

It would as well make more sense to rebadge a 75 MHz Motorola/Freescale chip (i.e. without MMU/FPU) as being a 133 MHz chip than doing the same with a 50 or 60 MHz Motorola/Freescale chip that has FPU/MMU but can only be overclocked to about 100 MHz at best. I guess the 75 MHz part without MMU/FPU due to the simpler design should be overclockable to at least the same frequency (albeit I still doubt the 133 MHz) but should be way cheaper to source for potential rebadgers.

> Lots of possibilities

Three to be precise (in no particular order):

1. Licensed clone.
2. Unlicensed clone.
3. Relabelled slower Motorola/Freescale part.

Missed any?

@ AmigaDave

Good luck David,

You're going to get swamped with offers. I can't get them to stop pestering me with offers. No specs or data sheets, but lots of offers to sell chips.

On the idea of these being clones, did you see Andreas' break down of the date code?

The use of a Motorola-like part designation, a 2002 date code, the fact that no one has ever gotten a 68060 to run above 108Mhz - all these stack against the clone theory.

But keep us abreast with any info you get from the Chinese.

Will do Jim. I used a less used email address for them to reply to and the junk filter for email on MacOSX is pretty good, so after marking the junk sales replies that come without any info that I requested, I won't have too much spam to deal with.

I am guilty of messing with you and Andreas after your heated replies in opposition to me labeling your posts as speculation. I found it quite amusing that you both objected to the use of that term so much and this just urged me on to play more of the "Devil's Advocate" in presenting alternate possibilities, no matter how absurd I thought they might be. Sorry, but as Flip Wilson would say "The Devil made me do it"!

As for the code date, it does not affect my belief that cloning is still a possibility, maybe as likely as rebadging slower chips. I would have to do more research on when the 68060 was first produced in relation to that 2002 date to increase or decrease the likely hood of clones being produced at that time.

In regard to the claims that no one has been successful in overclocking any 68060 faster than 108MHz, do we know if any of those overclocker's were using this 133 branded chip or not? If they really have been available since 2002, it would be strange if no one had tried using them and over clocking them (or under clocking them) prior to now. There seems to be so little information regarding this chip and what it was ever used in, it is hard to make good assumptions about it at this time. We might even find that there are some MC68060FE133 chips that have working MMU and/or FPU units and that the cheap units that the Natami team purchased were just rejects that were discarded because they had faulty MMU & FPU units. The advertising info on some sites that list suppliers of these chips do state that this chip has working MMU and FPU units. Normally I would not be writing these kinds of speculative possibilities without having something to base them on, but I mischieviously inserted myself into your discussion on this topic and have gotten sucked deeper into it now.



[ Edited by amigadave 05.06.2011 - 18:52 ]

Don't sweat it David.
I've been tweaking a few noses at Amiga.org this weekend, myself.

It will be interesting if someone sends you some data. All I was offered was some incorrect internet links.

> no one has ever gotten a 68060 to run above 108Mhz

Just to add that this was a full 68060 Rev.6, and that it seems the NatAmi Team's "MC68060FE133" still wasn't even tried at more than about 80 MHz. Or maybe it was tried but unsuccessfully so and thus not considered worth nor wise reporting?

> ...with you and Andreas after your heated replies in opposition to me labeling
> your posts as speculation. I found it quite amusing that you both objected to
> the use of that term so much

Could you please quote where I objected "to the use of that term so much"?

> this just urged me on to play more of the "Devil's Advocate" in presenting
> alternate possibilities, no matter how absurd I thought they might be.

Does that mean you think the "licensed clone" theory is absurd? And even the "unlicensed clone" theory as well?

> do we know if any of those overclocker's were using this 133 branded chip or not?

Yes, we do know that they didn't use it but instead used full 68060 Rev.6 chips.

> If they really have been available since 2002

The 2002 date code can only be assumed as being genuine in case of a licensed clone. An unlicensed clone or rebadged chip could as well have a fake/rebadged date code.

> it would be strange if no one had tried using them and over clocking them

What do you mean "over clocking them"? Attempting to run the part past 133 MHz?

> (or under clocking them) prior to now.

Huh? The NatAmi Team *does* run this chip underclocked at about 80 MHz, assuming it's a 133 MHz part.

> We might even find that there are some MC68060FE133 chips that have
> working MMU and/or FPU units and that the cheap units that the Natami
> team purchased were just rejects that were discarded because they had
> faulty MMU & FPU units. The advertising info on some sites that list suppliers
> of these chips do state that this chip has working MMU and FPU units.

Usually, the surface printing of chip designation etc. is only done *after* testing. Faulty MMU and FPU should have led to an "68EC060" designation, not "68060". That said, I'd be surprised to find independent reports (i.e. not supplier info) on "MC68060FE133" chips containing both functional MMU and functional FPU. It might be that the sites listing that chip as having working FPU/MMU just fell for the lack of "EC" or "LC" in the chip's designation.

Since the MC68060FE133 is a surface mounted part, and not a socketed part, it makes testing multiple parts much more difficult and I wonder if more than one Natami CPU daughtercard was assembled? With the 060 daughtercard being aimed at developers for debugging, testing and development, the need for the MMU on this daughtercard is more critical than the consumer versions of the Natami, which are not going to have working MMU's (and probably not an FPU either) within the softcore N68050 that they are creating. So, if the Natami team believes that all of their MC68060FE133 chips do not have an MMU & FPU, they may not use any more of them for the developer daughtercards.

Being surface mounted parts would also discourage most hobbyist from using these chips in their projects, when alternative socketed 68060 chips are still available to purchase for their designs.

No, I am not going to quote your objection to my statements about you and Jim speculating about what the MC68060FE133 might be, or most likely is.

Are you really going to deny that you objected to me calling all of your discussions regarding this chip "Speculation"?

If you weren't objecting to my assertion that you were both just speculating, why the angry responses questioning my speculation about possible alternatives?

I don't know why I bother to reply to anything you write, it is a complete waste of time (which is why I usually only reply to others in threads).

Of course it was all speculation, David.
What I know about my own reaction (and possibly Andreas') is that it didn't make sense to support any conclusion except the most logical one.

> No, I am not going to quote your objection to my statements about you and
> Jim speculating about what the MC68060FE133 might be, or most likely is.

No problem, so I'm dismissing your claim about me objecting "to the use of that term so much" as an untrue statement.

> Are you really going to deny that you objected to me calling all of your
> discussions regarding this chip "Speculation"?

Yes, I'm denying that I did.

> If you weren't objecting to my assertion that you were both just speculating, why the
> angry responses questioning my speculation about possible alternatives?

The fact that I was questioning ("Angry"? Huh?) your speculations about a "licensed clone" as being improbable doesn't mean I was objecting to your assertion that Jim and me were both speculating.

> I don't know why I bother to reply to anything you write

But maybe you know why you claim things about me which you can't back up?

> I usually only reply to others in threads

As you might have noticed, that doesn't make me not reply to you, especially when you make untrue statements about me and what I allegedly objected to.