>> it doesnt make sense either way.

> No, it does make sense from either perspective.

Really? How so?

> Its odd that both views lead to Viper.

I don't find that odd. In the same way how depending on view the "TBA FY2010" products can be meant to either be based on Titan or on PPC465, "Viper" can really be just anything. There's not one single technical detail regarding "Viper" in that roadmap depiction, so even if plans had changed completely they could still have kept the "Viper" name for future products.

> I think its safe to say that Titan was ready for production when canceled

Yes, probably. We know that sample silicon is in customers' hands, and GCC support was added just recently, so there should be people using it.

> and that possibly except for modified gating via Intrinsity it isn't that different
> than other APM products.

We still don't know how Titan really relates to the PPC4xx cores. You can read about the compromising conclusion from minator and me there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=81221#81221