Mc68060fe133 ???

[Evore]

Hi All!

Does anyone have experience with this processor type?

MC68060FE133
5E68C
QQZN0050

Those were bought about 10 years ago from China, never used. I haven't been able to find any information in regards of this specific model and appearance. There have been several pictures with different appearance of this type of marking on the net, but nothing resembles these.

Been planning to insert this to a turbo card, for testing and so on, but this obviously would need an adaptor of some kind.

Thanks!

[ajk]

Looks like these have been around in the past. The result as to what they are exactly is a bit inconclusive:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57364

Freescale support:

"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."

[meynaf]

I vaguely remember the Natami team trying these, and that they started failing much before 133Mhz.
Anyway, lack of MMU of FE models make them unusable for Amiga (because MMU is required at least to mark the chipset registers, maybe even the chipmem, as non cacheable).

[gulliver]

The fastest ever 060 was marked at 75mhz and had no FPU.

All faster variants are either fake chips or rebadged EC060 of lower speed in the best of cases.
Anyway, it is a scam chip often rebadged by chinese sellers.

[Lord Aga]

Originally Posted by meynaf

I vaguely remember the Natami team trying these, and that they started failing much before 133Mhz.

Yes. About 100, or 105.

But still, they are working chips. Not just a piece of plastic with fake pins.

So it's a kind of a half-scam

[Evore]

This chip was bought for 6.80 USD a piece, so I'm not sure about the scam part in regards of these, of course needs to be tested ...

Does anyone know where to get this adapter:

QFP (240pin) -> PGA (206pin)

Or pinout ?

[AJCopland]

Natami hit 120Mhz before failing, but that wasn't the chip that was the board design.

The hardware people expected that with a few minor revisions it would reach it's target speed.

I don't believe however that they had FPU or MMU which was a bigger issue.

It's hard to remember but despite them not being Freescale/Motorola parts they seemed to pass the hardware tests and be 68060-like parts wherever they came from.

[thebajaguy]

The 'FE' parts were only EC/LC parts - Full parts never were made with that surface-mount format. The surface-mount part with more pins showed up with the mask rev that most consider the Rev 3/4. It also represents a Y in the road as far as the EC/LC and the Full masks (they were the same prior to this).

I recently dug into online documents and discussions, and for both EC/LC and Full, that's the rev (after Rev 2) that fixed most of the mask bugs, but different mask designations (see Motorola Errata 4.0, and for a little more confusion in that period, see if you can find Errata 3.1) for the info. There was also the shrink to 0.42 that the EC/LC got first right around that time.

The EC/LC then got MC designation with the next rev (Mask last four digits are the same, but the prefix went from 02 to 03). The Full got shrunk down to 0.42 manufacturing at that time, and that's the Rev 5. Later, the Full got another shrunk down again, and we know that's the Full Rev 6 that gets overclocked past 100Mhz most of the time.

What's unclear is if the 75Mhz designations that only the EC/LC got around that time (based on legacy parts listing and data sheets at vendors) were just from yields that could run at 75Mhz (make a few $ more), or of they got the same shrink as the Full. I think the EC/LC stayed at 0.42, as we know we can overclock most of the 0.42 parts in general into the 75Mhz realm.