> You sort of answer that first question with your later statement.

I can't see how. I say that no matter if that roadmap was created before or after Titan was ditched it doesn't make sense to have it in a recent presentation, because if it's from before then why not use a more recent roadmap in a recent presentation, and if it's from after then why have Titan/Gemini on it at all. You then reply that it *does* make sense from either perspective. I can't really see that yet, as well as I can't see how my later statement about "Viper" "sort of" answers my question how that roadmap depiction including mention of Titan/Gemini makes sense from either perspective.

> a quick search of the APM website for "Viper" references turns up...
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NDExOTg4fENoaWxkSUQ9NDIyNjcxfFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1
> the same document.

That's not just the same document but even the very same link that I gave ;-)

> So at this point, its fair to say that the name predates even product planning.

Depends on how you define "product planning" :-) I guess that "Viper" could be the multicore, 64 bit, 2.5 GHz CPU that Applied Micro mentioned on another roadmap in September 2010, and I think that even making up one's mind about such basic specs can qualify as the beginning phase of "product planning".