Be aware that if you try to develop a Prodigy processor that is equally good at general-purpose, graphics, and multi-threaded AI workloads, it will be difficult and you may not reach your performance goals. That’s exactly what Tachyum set out to do, but it doesn’t seem to live up to expectations as the IP provider sued Cadence.
“these are [IP] These elements were envisioned to be off-the-shelf technology that could be delivered quickly to meet Tachyum’s critical product development timelines, allowing the universal processor to be the first to market. register (opens in new tab)“However, catastrophic failures plagued each component, in some cases leading to Cadence advising Tachyum not to use the component and/or to obtain it from another vendor.”
Before we get into the complaints and details, remember what Tachuym promised (and shared some performance numbers back in June. register.
The full-fat Tachyum Prodigy processor combines up to 128 dedicated cores with 16 DDR5 memory channels for 1,024-bit interfaces, supporting up to 8TB of DDR5 memory at data rates up to 7200 MT/s (hence a maximum bandwidth of 921.6 GBps) and 64 PCIe 5.0 lanes. Regarding frequencies, Tachyum said that his Prodigy is designed to run up to 5.7 GHz and is a product of TSMC’s performance-optimized N5P process technology.
According to Tachium petition (opens in new tab) The decision to use Cadence’s IP, which was filed in California Superior Court, was based on Cadence’s “representations.” It is not based on the company’s track record of winning thousands of designs and successfully mass-producing them.
“Tachyum chose Cadence over its competitors, relying on Cadence’s representations regarding its product capabilities and development plans,” the claim states. “After the collaboration progressed, Tachyum learned that many of these statements relating to several very important aspects of the project were false. […] These elements were off-the-shelf technology that could be delivered quickly to meet Tachyum’s critical product development schedule, making the Universal Processor the first to market. However, catastrophic failures plagued each component, in some cases leading Cadence to advise his Tachyum not to use it and/or to obtain it from other vendors. ”
Cadence’s misbehavior caused Tachyum to fail one client’s expectations.So far, tachyons have publicly announced (opens in new tab) Just one deal that omits the merits, money, or horsepower you want (but you mean a 128-core product, so you’d have to assume that’s the case).
But as strange as this case looks from the reader’s point of view, it contains something else that may be overlooked. Tachyum’s lawsuit alleging sabotage of its products by his IP provider will make other of his IP providers and contract chip designers think twice before signing contracts and embark on Prodigy’s journey. . But complaints may also have an answer to that assumption.
“For nearly two years, Tachyum worked with Cadence to try and find solutions to these problems, but there were constant and widespread project delays and frustrations. Our large investment in both technology and technology meant that switching to another vendor or service provider would not be an easy task.”
Tachyum’s Prodigy processors said Tachyum “had a deal with another company that could provide what Cadence couldn’t, but only cost Tachyum millions of dollars in extra costs and months of extra delay.” ‘So you’re still coming.
Tachyum, on the other hand, may have merit in that lawsuit (although Tachyum has signed one high-volume contract so far, and that speaks for itself).
“Tachyum’s allegations began when it was learned that Cadence’s then-CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, was on the board of two of Tachyum’s competitors and was heavily involved in two investment funds that invested in other competitors. , went even deeper: this is a clear conflict of interest.”
