>> 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.

They can't leave Titan/Gemini off the roadmap. It had been announced years ago. The product was finally being tested by their partners. Everyone has a general sense that its discontinuation relates to Apple's purchase of Intrinsity and the subsequent payment to APM..
If Titan truly fits into the general evolution of APM products, they'd want to acknowledge it.

>>>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.


That last highlighted line says it all. Whether through Titan or around it their eventual path to 40nm and smaller leads to something called Viper.

At the point the document was created they had no idea how they were going to proceed, but they knew what they were likely to end up at. Since its still valid (thanks to its vague nature) why change it?

But it does seem to indicate that the APM product line has been evolutionary. Which make me more convinced that Titan isn't that different.



[ Edited by Jim on 2011/2/12 17:10 ]

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/2/12 17:11 ]