This posting is clear that the the product in question are AMD CPU. Apple already has access to GPU from ATI so why would execs be in meetings with Apple for GPU only when the partnership in that arena has been established.
Believe it or not, business meetings to discuss the future of current relationships are VERY common in the business world. The new MBPs don't sport AMD GPUs. It is very possible they were discussing the next MBP iteration.
While I believe that to be more likely than a CPU meeting, it could also be very possible that Apple wanted to have a look a Bulldozer to put a little pressure on Intel. From what I've heard, Acer had pre-ordered a lot of mobile Core iX CPUs in Q1 and therefore caused the shortage that forced Apple to push back its MBP refresh. It could very well be that this is their way of getting back at Intel.
To relage Bulldozer (AMD's most significant core in 3 years or more) to a pithy comment like "might earn them a few laurel" signifies that you likely have not done due diligence in research
What you think about AMD products today has little bearing on where they will be in 2011 . AMD is clearly stronger in GPU and is more OpenCL compliant than Intel or Nvidia right now. They're already sampling
Fusion.
I'm not saying AMD is going to eat all of Intel's business but there's little reason to be Intel only when AMD can offer nice systems that can be priced lower than Intel based computers.
Apple doesn't care about:
- desktop CPUs (save for the iMac, which is now on desktop CPUs)
- CPUs that run very hot under load
- saving a few bucks and sacrificing slim designs and battery life at the same time
Phenoms wouldn't be possible in iMacs because they run too freaking hot, and for everything else Apple uses mobile or server CPUs. AMD's mobile CPUs are just plain crap. There is not a single laptop out there that could match a Macbook's form factor combined with equally long battery life and CPU power. Not even close. AMD is competitive in the server business with their new 12-core-CPU, but we all now how important Mac Pros are nowdays.
You mention Fusion. How is Fusion going to be a danger for Intel's Core iX CPUs with integrated GPU, which are already being sold in huge numbers? Yeah, Fusion's GPU will surely be better, but no one will care if an integrated GPU will be twice as fast. People who need GPU power will put in a dedicated GPU (probably by AMD) and enjoy 10 times the performance. Fusion needs to be sold cheaper than Core iX, that is AMD's only chance. And I'm not sure if putting GPU and CPU on the same die is a wise choice to achieve that goal. They already failed miserably to get an advantage out of the "one-die" strategy with Phenom I and instead suffered huge losses because of it.
Bulldozer looks good, but there are no performance numbers out yet, and no performance/watt figures. It very much looks like a desktop CPU, but the future lies in the mobile space. Desktop is DEAD, and server will remain pretty unimportant.