Pentium 166 fake or not?

[isa-d]

I'm not an expert, this Pentium 166 has an uncommon marking (I believe) but is it a fake or genuine?

[iguana]

imho it looks like genuine.
but there were discussion on it

http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6764

[iguana]

and here

http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5100&highlight=fake

[debs3759]

IMO it's a fake. Why would Intel remark a production chip into a sample?

[Neon_WA]

bottom line is that there is probably no way of knowing if genuine or remarked fake

but personally I dont have an issue with the processor as there is no already known QS for SY016.
Q0836 is the ES for this part and Intel went straight into production with the SY016.
a qSpec marking serves two purposes.. to identify a sample (be it ES or QS) and also establish that the processor is not for commercial use and the property of Intel (until a court said not )

I suspect as there was no QS for this part, Intel remarked production processors to supply to the OEMs or motherboard manufacturers as test samples.
Test samples would be provided generally for free, so by marking them with a qSpec the processors would fall under Intel sample program and could not be resold

There are a few other examples of production parts remarked with a qSpec in both Pentiums & Pentium Pros
and quite often there are no differences between a QS and a production processor.

Looking at the additional engravings on the Q056s I can see no indication that the engravings were done outside the Intel plant.
The date of production processors are not extremely early but are within the first 3 months of production.
The additional Q056 marking would be done after retesting the processor to see if suitable to supply as a sample, so a varying font is not unlikely as a different laser machine was likely to have been used.
While the font does vary from the production markings, key features that fakers often miss are correct with the additional markings