> it would mean it should have a BIOS able to cope with every
> possible memory module the user might plug in.

Pegasos II doesn't have a more advanced "BIOS" than the Efika 5200B. And while it can be picky about RAM it's not that hard to find Pegasos II compatible RAM modules, so it shouldn't be harder with a hypothetical Efika 5200B with RAM slot.

Quote:
Other than firmware I guess the memory controller involved could also make some difference.

> Other than firmware I guess the memory controller involved could
> also make some difference.

Yes, certainly. I've no idea if the Marvell Discovery II memory controller's general compatibility is better or worse than the MPC5200B memory controller's, though.

Addendum:

> I found an interesting PDF presentation file dating August 2010 over there.
> The most interesting pages are #16, which shows a product roadmap mentioning
> "Future Viper SoCs", and #18, which reads "Viper Technology -> Breakthrough
> Performance at Disruptive Cost Basis". To my surprise, the roadmap on page 16
> still contains the Titan core based "Gemini" (APM83290), which had been
> semi-officially declared dead one month before. Strange.

Still all the same in this most recent presentation (February 2011).

Addendum:

>> To my surprise, the roadmap on page 16 still contains the
>> Titan core based "Gemini" (APM83290), which had been
>> semi-officially declared dead one month before. Strange.

> Still all the same in this most recent presentation (February 2011).

"GCC now supports the Applied Micro Titan processor"
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html#targets

When APM refers to "Viper" processors on page 15 are they referring to the "Mamba"?

> When APM refers to "Viper" processors on page 15 are they referring to the "Mamba"?

Probably not. Mamba seems to be the first of the three products denoted as "TBA FY2010" at 40 nm. More info of what could be "Viper" was discussed by me there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=76984#76984

Thanks, so this page appears to have been created quite a while ago (if it lists products TBA 2010).
And future processors (after Gemini) appear to be 465 cored. So what you're referencing may indicate that the move away from Titan was anticipated earlier than I thought.

> so this page appears to have been created quite
> a while ago (if it lists products TBA 2010).

As I wrote back in September already, the first presentation I encountered containing this very roadmap page is from August 2010. But yes, it may be even older.

> what you're referencing may indicate that the move away from Titan
> was anticipated earlier than I thought.

We simply don't know when that roadmap page was created originally. We could assume it's from when Titan/Gemini was still vivid. This would mean that the 40 nm processors could be shrinked Titan cored ones. After all, Applied Micro knew that 40 nm production would become cheaper over time so that at some point in time there wouldn't be the need for going 90 nm for cost reasons any more. But then, why have such a very much obsoleted roadmap in a presentation from as recent as February 2011?
One the other hand, we could assume the roadmap page is from after Titan/Gemini had been ditched. This would mean that the 40 nm processors are from the PPC465 cored PacketPro family, starting with Mamba. But then, why have Titan/Gemini on a roadmap when it had been ditched and never took off as a real product (except from sampling, that is)?
As you see, it doesnt make sense either way. Or did I miss anything?

Quote:

No, it does make sense from either perspective. Its odd that both views lead to Viper.
I think its safe to say that Titan was ready for production when canceled and that possibly except for modified gating via Intrinsity it isn't that different than other APM products.

>> 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

>>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.

You sort of answer that first question with your later statement. And 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. So at this point, its fair to say that the name predates even product planning.

Odd choice of names for their processors. Venomous snakes seem to be the current theme. Before that Gemini/Titan which could be a mythological or space exploration reference.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/2/11 22:57 ]

> 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".

>> 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 ]

> They can't leave Titan/Gemini off the roadmap. It had been announced years ago.
> The product was finally being tested by their partners.

But it never reached a real production state, only a testing/sampling state. I think it would be wiser to be honest about the ditching of Titan/Gemini and not present it in a way which implies it is or was a real product like their other products of present and past.

> Everyone has a general sense that its discontinuation relates to Apple's
> purchase of Intrinsity

You could as well call it "the current buzz" about the killing of Titan/Gemini ;-) Actually, there are many attempts out there to explain it, most of them not even mentioning Apple or Intrinsity. Just two examples that were discussed in this very thread:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=77005#77005
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=77141#77141

> and the subsequent payment to APM.

That's something I didn't see discussed anywhere except here on MorphZone, after I dug that information up. Do you have some links to other discussions or reportings of that?

> If Titan truly fits into the general evolution of APM products, they'd want to acknowledge it.

It seems in this regard Applied Micro is different from other companies. Most companies would attempt to smudge all traces to failed products of theirs ;-)

> Whether through Titan or around it their eventual path to 40nm and
> smaller leads to something called Viper.

Yes, if you only regard the roadmap's rightmost product then everthing that is located left from it doesn't matter. But that's not what I did when I talked about that roadmap's mention of Titan/Gemini.

> At the point the document was created they had no idea how they were going to proceed

I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Or did your contacts at Applied Micro tell you that?

> but they knew what they were likely to end up at. Since its still valid
> (thanks to its vague nature) why change it?

Because Titan/Gemini never became a real product. As I said, I never objected to the mention of "Viper" but to the mention of Gemini.

> it does seem to indicate that the APM product line has been evolutionary.

I doubt that it would be any less evolutionary without Titan/Gemini. Just compare the product line based on the cores used:

With Titan: PPC440 -> PPC464 -> Titan -> PPC464FP -> PPC465 (*)
Without Titan: PPC440 -> PPC464 -> PPC464FP -> PPC465

* Spot the one that stands out ;-)

Addendum:

> Mamba seems to be the first of the three products denoted as "TBA FY2010" at 40 nm.

I just discovered that the roadmap shows "PPC46X Platform" in the "Legacy" section. How do the announced PPC465 based PacketPro/Mamba processors fit there? And what's "TBA FY2010" if not PacketPro/Mamba? The more I think of it, the less sense that "product pipeline" depiction makes to me, especially if it's to be found in a presentation from 2011.

That is a good point. If APM only meant to refer to the 460 then why the x?

Which brings us full circle to your original argument and one basic question - why is an obviously dated graphic being included in new presentations?

And curiously enough, none of the mambas are vipers. Viper are generally slower and often less lethal. If they were attempting to offer some continuity with the name its only marginal.

Frankly Andreas, I've never wholly trusted this company.

> That is a good point. If APM only meant to refer to the 460 then why the x?

I just gave it another thought and came to the conclusion that if we take the mentions of "40X", "44X" and "46X" not as relating to the CPU core but to the denominations of the chips it actually makes sense. After all, we know that Applied Micro have changed their naming scheme for new chips. PPC40x changed to APM80xxx, PPC46x changed to APM82xxx and APM86xxx/PacketPro/Mamba respectively, and PPC44x chips are not even listed any more on their regular website. So if we read the graphic this way then "TBA FY2010" (the leftmost one, that is) can actually refer to the PPC465 core based APM86xxx/PacketPro/Mamba chips.

Quote:

That is a particularly lucid analysis. Since Gemini and Viper are naming scheme rather than processor designations that would clear up the ambiguity of that page.

[ Edited by Jim on 2011/2/13 19:06 ]

> Since Gemini and Viper are naming scheme rather than processor designations
> that would clear up the ambiguity of that page.

Still the question is what those other two "TBA FY2010" products at 40 nm are. After all, it's 2011 by now and I'm not aware of anything else than APM86x90/Mamba meeting this spec.

Quote:

So what do you think they might do?
What are those two unaccounted for products likely to feature?
So far their products have only advanced a short distance from their licensed IBM origins.
Do they have the engineers needed to move forward with more advanced technologies? They're using TMSC for fabrication, so they don't have to worry about process and foundry issues.
But can they move to 64 bit processors, multi-cored processors(>2), processor that run >2Ghz?

By the time Mamba is introduced, the 5010 and 5020 will be available.

> So what do you think they might do?

Probably announce those two "TBA FY2010" products in 2011, of which there's still seven eights left. If they do, they'll only be one year behind their own roadmap which they reissued in ...2011 ;-)

Btw, I found some recent statements from Applied Micro principals:

------------------------------
Paramesh Gopi - Applied Micro Circuits Corporation - President and CEO
[...] Year to date, Applied Micro has introduced 7 new 40-nanometer TSMC products, of which 4 are processors.
[...]
Robert Gargus - Applied Micro Circuits Corporation - SVP and CFO
[...] we had introduced 7 new products this year through the first 9 months. Four of those were in the Processor family, and all of them were 40-nanometer. And all of them were in TSMC.
------------------------------
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/711065/000119312511021986/dex992.htm (transcript of Applied Micro's third quarter 2011 earnings conference call in late January 2011)

Still, I can only count two: APM86190 and APM86290.

> What are those two unaccounted for products likely to feature?

For that to know I'd have to be a prophet ;-) But let's assume that as usual the height level indicates performance. That would mean their next 40 nm processor should be really low end, undercutting PPC440 performance level, and the one shortly after should be slightly faster than Mamba.
Furthermore, PacketPro was originally announced to sport USB 3.0 as well as 10GbE. So far, Mamba only offers USB 2.0 and 1GbE.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=80171#80171

> So far their products have only advanced a short
> distance from their licensed IBM origins.

They advanced IBM's PPC440 core by adding an FPU and later L2 cache, yes. With IBM's PPC464, PPC464FP and PPC465 cores I'm not aware of any advancements done by Applied Micro at all.

> Do they have the engineers needed to move forward with more
> advanced technologies? [...] can they move to 64 bit processors,
> multi-cored processors(>2), processor that run >2Ghz?

I really don't know. But as I said, their roadmap from September 2010 showed 64-bit, multicore (which wouldn't necessarily have to mean "more than 2") and 2.5 GHz. But there was no timeframe attached.

> By the time Mamba is introduced, the 5010 and 5020 will be available.

According to Applied Micro, production quantities of Mamba are expected in Q2/2011. You told me some weeks ago that Freescale anticipated Q2/2011 for P5010 production as well (which was originally set at H2/2011). So let's see who'll be first :-)

Update:

>> So what do you think they might do?

> Probably announce those two "TBA FY2010" products in 2011

I found something that may be considered a clue:

"Many of our customers worldwide currently use Abatron’s probes with PowerPC 405, 440, 460, and 836xx processor families"
http://www.abatron.ch/news/support-for-appliedmicro-s-apm86290.html

(APM)836xx? What's that? I couldn't find anything about it. And how would it relate to APM83290/Gemini?

Quote:

Odd, either they transposed the 3 and 6 or that designation could be interpreted as a Titan successor.
What do you think it is?
I sent Abatron an inquiry directly, but I have my doubts that they'll clarify this.

> either they transposed the 3 and 6

If I understand right this would mean it should have been '863xx', wouldn't it? But that would be odd as well as the sentence mentions the "APM86xxx family" separately.

> or that designation could be interpreted as a Titan successor.

Or rather a Gemini successor with either a Titan core or a successor to that core.

> What do you think it is?

It could be a typo of some sort. The other two Applied Micro processor families that are supported by Abatron but are missing in that press release's list are 821xx and 832xx/Gemini. So "836xx" could mean one of those. But I don't know really.

> I sent Abatron an inquiry directly

I'm curious :-)