open a shell windows and type cpu060 ns to disable superscalar cache
to enable it : cpu060 s

to check which 060 caches are running simply type cpu060

If disabling SuperScalar is necessary will (from my experience) depend on your 060-cpu. I have a 68060 rev 6 (wich is AFAIK the latest revision), and unlike my previous 060-card (with an older revision) it seems to work fine here to e.g. run MacOs 8.1 with SuperScalar turned on.

this is rare because macos 8.1 don't like the 060 at all
I have winuae with shapeshifter and fusion and a mac 8.1 hardfile and I can't select a 060 as main procesor because fusion and shapeshifter crash during boot

perhaps you disabled some macos 8.1 extension which don't like the 060 or something like that

btw, the 060 is fast but is horrible to run lot of software and games
in my experience the best 68k cpu for a real Amiga is a 040/40 mhz , which still have good compatibility with games and programs yet is almost as fast as 060/50 mhz

Playing with System Prefs didn't help me. All I got is smiling face. But unfortunately not mine. Bit off topic but trying to use TurboEVD in Shape shifter and says MMU tables incompatible. Must be same reason AmiRefresh is not working as well. What is needed to make it work? Thanks for any help.

if u have problems with turboevd too then surely ur 060 do not have a mmu or maybe it have some issue or u are using the incorrect 68060 library

plz check in the program sysinfo if MMU says "in use" or N/A
confirm

Sysinfo says MMU in use. MuEVD video driver works correctly so must be 68060 library then. Which one would you recommend? How about MMU library? I installed MuTools. Maybe I should use different one. I got 3.2.1 OS with 3.2 ROM

Probably some incompatibility with new mmu.library, i get the same error both in UAE and TF1260 with working MMU. There is no reason to use it over MuEVD anyway.

delete the mmu library, is not needed and could cause conflict, leave only the 68060 library that comes with ur turboboard
also delete any mmu tool
on the other way I use the 68060.liibrary 46.7 version from phase 5 , it works fine there
perhaps you can try it

Don't listen this nonsense. Thor's MMuLib (which includes 68060.library) is listed as requirement for TF1260, and removing mmu.library after it's installed just results in non-booting OS.

such mmu lib and such 68060 lib must be reason of fusion mmu video driver not working, surely due some incompatible mmu tables or something like that

he should try a different 68060 lib without mmu.library
candidates : 68060 library from apollo, or from phase 5 etc

@Marce:

Did you actually read what I wrote? Your experiences with WinUae don't mean anything at all, WinUae is a program, not a hardware. As soon as WinUae supports emulating a 68060 Revision 6 you can make your own tests. Until then you will have to believe me, it does work.

I haven't ever tried Fusion on a 040, so I can't do direct comparisons of performance, but according to all common benchmarks you are completely wrong, the 060 is much faster than the 040.
Compatibilty is a different issue, all in all I was always satisfied with the compatibility of Fusion. A game I could never get to work is "UniCycle", it always freezes after a few seconds. It would be interesting, if it works on a 040.

By the way, one of my favourite Mac-games is DirtBike. When I changed my system from a PicassoIV-card to a CyberVisionPPC-card (which offers higher transfer-rates than Zorro3) the scrolling of the game got much smoother. So access-speed of VideoMem is surely also quite important for performance.

I swapped 68060 library to Phase 5 and big bang. All working now. Thank you guys. Just noticed Shapeshifter is a bit faster. Maybe I'll try some changes in MacOS or ROMs but I'm happy I learn something anyway.

please noite the 040/40mhz performs 30 mips on sysinfo while the 060/50 performs 39 mips
that's means the 060 is around 25% faster, which is not very noticeable in real life experience

in integer both cpus are the same per clock, so a 040 overclocked to 50mhz performs idem than the 060/50


for you to understand, a 040 is a better CPU for the Amiga because is much more compatible and friendly

however ID like to test in real hardware such rev 6 68060, perhaps was enhanced to improve compatibility

What kind of MIPS are that? Other tests state 90 MIPS for 50MHz 060. The 060 is very roughly 2 times faster per MHz than the 040.

nope , that's another Amiga myth as, both CPUS are the same per clock
also the 020 and the 030 are the same per clock

such 90 mips fake number surely comes from the program sysspeed which is very buggy /inaccurate that's why generally all cpu tests are performed on sysinfo

That's because 060 has superscalar in-order dual instruction pipeline configuration, and an instruction decoder which breaks down complex instructions into simpler ones before execution. But it has to be supported in the program code, else you get just one pipeline used - that's what I understand is the difference .

@zipper:
Quote: ...An instruction decoder which breaks down complex instructions into simpler ones before execution...

I am not a programer, so my knowledge about such things is very limited (so excuse me in case I am talking nonsense). However to my best knowledge this is true for each and every 68k-cpu, i.e. 68000-68060. This is actually how a CISC-Cpu is defined.

060 has dual lines, lower processors just one afaik. For instance Sysinfo uses just one line and shows just half of 060 possible performance.

dual lines? come on ,the 060 is not a dual core
sysinfo reports integer performance and is very accurate

this is like "single core speed" measured today in PCs which is the most accurate way to compare cpus