AMD dead or Alive

Seems to me that they are working hard on 65nm processors and their Quad Core (Barcelona I think they are called) processors.

Also read a while ago they are trying to develop whats called an APU (Accelarated Processing Unit I think that stands for) which apparently is to help stop the CPU bottlenecking the graphics card, but not heard much on them yet.

LOL! That reminds me of a recent thread. Hilarious!

I found this on an article from TGDaily (http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/12/18/opinion_can_amd_reinvent_the_mp/page2.html)

"APU - solution for the future?

The other, more significant example is "Fusion," a code-name for a processor that "fuses" a graphics core with a traditional CPU and the Northbridge on the silicon level. The reasoning behind that idea is that basic 3D graphics is well on its way to becoming a commodity and that graphics processors have many more talents that aren't exploited today: For example, the floating point performance of ATI's R580 processors is already almost ten times higher than that of today's high-end dual-core processors. Technically, the integration of a GPU into a CPU, could enable AMD to build very low-end processors that do not need an integrated graphics chipset anymore - and use the same idea to build supercomputer microprocessors.

AMD recently told us that Fusion is very much in the first stages of development, so its capabilities are largely theoretical at this time. AMD, however reiterated at the meeting with analysts that the first Fusion processors will be mobile processors and will provide advantages in terms of power efficiency when released. Performance is pure speculation at this time, but there is a good chance that the integration into the CPU could eliminate bottlenecks and bring some benefit over the external integrated graphics we are used today. AMD also expects that such processors will be cheaper to produce than separate CPUs and integrated graphics chipsets.

What is enticing about this idea, is the fact that Fusion is basically the same approach that brought us the integrated memory controller in Opteron and Athlon 64. AMD has been quite successful with this approach and integrated graphics are certainly a novel idea that could work out similarly. AMD's roadmap suggests that the first Fusion will surface in the 2009 timeframe.

But AMD does not call Fusion a "GPU-CPU," it calls it "APU" (accelerated processing unit) - which means than just a different way of integrating graphics. In fact, you could call this a "Lego" approach, which enables the company to take different building blocks to create different processors with very specific target applications. AMD claims that this "modular" approach to building processors will enable the company to quickly react to changing market trends. On the higher-end, a GPU could morph into a "stream processor" that won't accelerate graphics but take advantage of the floating point horsepower of the processor. AMD envisions stream computing to move into the mass market at some point, but clearly, stream computing is a high-end topic today and non-existent in the mass-market, as there are no off-the-shelf applications that are taking advantage of floating point capability.

What concerns us about Fusion is how the consumer will be affected, if this idea is successful and will develop as promised by AMD today. The company dreams about building a "one-size-fits-all processor" - and that is true only from a development or manufacturing point of view. A processor that is performance-tailored to certain application scenarios will only reveal that performance in those areas. There is a good chance that we are going from a general purpose microprocessor today to a specialized processor, which means you could end up with multiple computers in your house, specialized on different tasks.

Asked about a possible "fragmentation" of the microprocessor market, AMD told us that "people should not be worried about what a device is supposed to do" and believes that Fusion will be able to make buying a computer - or any other device that could integrate an AMD processor. From today's view, however, we believe that specialized processors could make buying a computer more complicated. At least if the consumer will continue to be exposed to the task of deciding on a processor for his computer."

Quickly browsing through it, seems they may have called it "Fusion" from now on.

Well, they will probably pull something out the bag. In my opinion I can't see nVdia losing out. Maybe some sort of Merger with Intel? or some sort of close working relationship? Could aid both them of them if the CPU/GPU combo is the way forward.

Mostly focusing on using their new resources for embedded business market.
Something Intel has had over them as well for years. Like Intel had complete domination over the desktop market until AMD pushed in, they have essentially the same with Xscale and Xeon servers.
Until Opteron came along.
Much of what I can say in detail is under NDA, but what I can say is that in the business sector AMD is alive and well, but feeling stockholder panic due to Intel's effective new chips and for the sheer fact that they market better.
What the merger with ATI eventually means is that AMD can now say "look at how much we are selling lately, chipsets (desktop, mobile and embedded), graphics solutions (both discreet and combined), and so on. What they don't really have, unlike Intel, is a true server chipset of their own, but they can now leverage ATI's capabilities into designing one.
Intel is a juggernaut whose sheer size is both a blessing and a curse, but as long as they keep doing what they are doing they will be fine.
AMD can be a bit more nimble and now that they have control over just about every aspect of what goes into an AMD machine (graphics, chipset, etc.) it allows them to control prices better.
The merger was dangerous and costly but it will be a good thing.
Intel was losing business market-share due to the Opteron's success. They counteracted by using the desktop market and the buzz about their C2D desktop processors to make people remember why they're Intel and why they're so damn good. They have the money to do that however.
AMD is significantly smaller and does not quite have the size or money to focus itself in so many places at once. Which is why they are likely waiting to make one great technological leap that will hold them over for some time, like the k7 and k8 days.
AMD desktops and mobiles are still popular and still generally less expensive than Intel so it's not like they suddenly can't sell anything.
"Who has the fastest processor" is not terrifically important when it comes right down to it because it's only a small fraction of people who will buy it.
However, it's great for marketing and that is exactly what Intel is successfully leveraging.