Thierry,

> > Probably all full-blown 66 MHz Q60 will have that mask revision. There is
> > nothing wrong about that. Especially as you have the "A" labelled
> > 68060RC60, which should be the best full-blown 68060 silicon ever for
> > overclocking.
> 
> I don't know were you got that info (or impression) from, but the XC68060
> is said by Amiga folks to be _less_ overclockable than the MC68060. Example
> : http://www.amiga-hardware.com/mc68060.html Citation: "The MC versions
> tends to be much more tolerant of heat and is
>            more tolerant of being overclocked."

Known. Goes among RC50 speed grade, but you were referring to RC60.

> I also browsed many Amiga sites today, and all the folks there use 50MHz
> MC68060s to overclock them at 66MHz without a single problem...

Also known. I tried to supply you with optimal savety margin. Wasted 
effort, as it looks now. But I wonder what had happened, if I provided you 
a slower speed grade with later mask revision. Probably a public 
lamentation about the speed grade :-)

> > (The only full-blown chips leaving Motorola fabs at the time I built your
> > board were 50 MHz, and I'm quite sure that was not what you wanted.)
> 
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC68060&node
> Id=018rH3YTLC4622#orderables

At the time I built your board, it was definitely _not_ on the website. I 
remember that exactly, because I wondered about it. Also I'd be careful to 
conclude availability from that page. Try to actually order and see what 
happens.

> The 1G65V mask _was_ normal mainstream production... It has been replaced
> in 1999 with the 0E41J, at which point the processor was renamed from
> XC68060 into MC68060: XC is used by Motorola for "Pilot production device"
> while MC is used for "Fully qualified parts", clearly indicating that prior
> to 0E41J maskset, the 68060 was still considered "experimental" by
> Motorola.

Same ole, same ole. Motorola often leaves chips labelled XC for long, 
while producing them fullscale. Some never get labelled MC. By itself, 
that means nothing.

> I don't know what 'FUD' means, but I'm simply searching for a bug-less
> 68060.

FUD = "Fear Uncertainty Doubt". You were not simply searching, but made a 
dramatic exaggeration out of this, just creating inappropiate feelings of 
uncertainty among Q60 users.

> I don't care about other processors, but if you remember all the fuss that
> was made about just -one- bug in the Pentium FPU (the "divide bug", I bet
> that Motorola was lucky that their processor was not as popular as the
> Pentium... On the other hand, the MC68060, which is the "fully qualified"
> device, is bugless, and the buggy XC68060 was clearly just a pre-release...

Motorola has sold the majority of 68060 this way, I see this as mainstream 
production.

> One thing is certain: I will not loose more time
> trying to make the copyback mode work under SMSQ/E, and this until my Q60
> is fitted with a bug-less processor: perhaps will the bug prove to be
> purely a software one in the end,

You could have mentioned that instead of just making a big fuss against my 
hardware.

> but my free time is too precious to loose
> it trying to distinguish what is the processor's fault and the software's
> one, and review the machine code of hundreds of kilobytes of OS extensions,
> toolkits and the like to spot the (correct !) line which fails to execute
> on my buggy processor...

If you had actually placed your promised order for a Q60/80 in time, even 
that scenario (which I still find pretty unrealistic) wouldn't exist. Also 
you could have asked me, but I gather that you prefer to stir up the 
public first.

> > I doubt such chips are on the market.
> 
> Again:
> 
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC68060&node
> Id=018rH3YTLC4622#orderables

Again: See above.

> I my case the only
> "catastrophic accident" is an added expense in order to end up with a 100%
> working system. I can deal with it. You should deal with your mistake too,
> like I do with mine. No need to whine. I don't.

I clearly reject your claim not to have a fully working system. "Working" 
needs to be defined by the normal purpose of a good, which is 100% 
fulfilled by your Q60. Your hypothetical added expense (please let me know 
if a RC60 with the mask revision you want exists on the market at all) 
would just provide you an extravagance that other mainstream 68060 systems 
have not. Chip documentation (including errata) has to be accepted if 
you're a specialist dealing with lowest level software. That's about all.

Peter

Reply via email to