I think so and I'm not just talking about Atari or other retro machines. I think a modernized 68060 (with bigger caches, 68kF, etc.) could compete favorably with modern ARM and be useful for embedded applications. I think it could have better performance/MHz (single core), offer 15-25% better code density and be easier to program while not being at much of a power consumption deficit. It might be good to add system on a chip (SoC) capabilities like ARM and ColdFire to be more appealing and would require some marketing ("The best code density in the industry" isn't bad ;). There are other parts of the puzzle that would have to come together like good developers, good managers and enough money to produce sufficient quantity and die size to be competitive. I'd be willing to invest more (I already invest my time) if I saw the right environment and people. I think there is enough talent here but not enough communication and management. The "team" seems to have been taken out of the Natami Team.

Chris If you take a look at the bus you can see it is a very specific implementation on the N68050 this is not a design flaw but it would make it challenging to make it bus compatible to any other 68K system.
Besides Nothing stops us from defining a ISA and implementing it.

If at a later point in time Deep sub releases the source of N68050 it could be taken in, but the other way around would work too.

++1

It would be great, but even Freescale does not believe in the wonderfull 68060.

Believe me, every time I switch off my AMIGA I think of how great is this computer and already foretaste next time I'll switch on it

They , whoever they are , just do not think that the arguments add enough up … I say , it is a lack of experiencing an intuitive vision , and a diminished capacity to imagine & believe . Well , somehow , strange as it sounds , that is good & perfect the way it is .

I agree with Matt Hey on what he says about the possible uses & advantages , there is space for all that and more , and I agree even more on the fact that there is not enough communication & good management of all the resources at hand . Also , strange as it sounds , that is just good & fine . It is better to be aware of the shortcomings in the beginning of a greater  endeavour … .

Such problems are very common in all kind of walks and it is one of the most difficult insights to gain alongside with the luck & art of finding that generalist that has the integrative skills to listen enough and to guide giving enough trust , hope and inspiration .

Truly few creative angel & tyrants know how to keep a great balance between the two extremes that push & pull a project forwards , into greater success . I am a firm believer that all that is conceived within a good sense & taste can be achieved if only enough artful spirits & practical realists join their forces to make the very best out of each …

Oo.JRT

It would be nice if freescale produced a really cheap one :))))))
for amigans purposes ;)

They ALWAYS defend windows (7, etc.), because "you can buy really really really big hard drives and they're cheap" which I assume means it makes everything microblob do "okay". It churns my stomach.

I can't do the action in the opening sentence until the NatAmi "exists".... PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE!!!!!!

NatAmi, after the IMMENSELY PERSISTENT FAILURE of ALL other so called "want to be"... "computers" AND "operating systems" none can EVEN WIPE CLEAN the shoes of AMIGA OS and HW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Am I "insane"?; no! quite the opposite!!!

I can FLOOD this place with stories of miserable alternate "OS" failures!!!!!

Sorry but that's not possible.

Better performance than a processor designed by a skilled processor team? As most performance enhancing things aren't directly architecture related that would be pretty much impossible. ARM designs specialized blocks optimized for certain processes while a 68k team would have to do with generic logic and simplified design of critical paths.

Code density for embedded applications wouldn't be better than a modern ARM that have thumb-2 support. Even the 32 bit original instruction set is very compact in the hands of a skilled programmer/compiler as one 32 bit instruction can be conditionally executed and encode one shift + one ALU operation. That ARM instructions are 3 operand (or even 4 operand) helps too.

Don't get me wrong here, I'd like to have a modernized 68k processor designed by an experienced CPU team but one have to be realistic. There are probably still a market for a 68k compatible for embedded systems and there could be enough for financing an ASIC development project but even then the result would have to be conservative.

You can create a new, so called 68k processor, with all the advancement since that age, but If you really want to get something good out of it, it will result in something, that just barely resembles the old ones.

The ARM architecture could be improved for sure, but why would you turn to something old, with all of its problems, instead just creating something new?

Intel is trying to compete in the embedded segment, and at least a few people here would say that it is just rehashing old ideas. But when we speak of 68k, it is innovation.
It all sounds to me like religious mantras.

If I dream, I dream about an improved Amiga, with an improved 68k. I don't dream of a revolution, because that costs a hell-a-lot. In my opinion a new Amiga and 68k should be better than the ones in the  past and affordable for all Amigans.

It's simple politics, and idiot businessmen trying to progress in their career by messing with things they don't understand. Nothing to do with technology.

To be honest if Moto did continue it's 68K line we would have been in the same predicament as the x86 ISA from Intel.

IMHO it is good the 68K died out because a dead language doesn't change.

This is neat because now we can enhance it under the hood without requiring to add special instructions and other shenanigans which are not required to make operations possible.

Motorola didn't think they would have enough market to improve the 68k line. They were most likely 100% correct in that aspect.
In comparison the PPC standard had the backing of IBM and others so as it were that choice was the better one. Remember even Microsoft supported PPC at the time and the RISC seemed too be the future.
That x86 had enough market (=money) to survive the critical phase when ISA still had any impact on performance was something most people didn't account for at the time...