When compared to Intel I think most people see AMD as a bit naff currently, would that be fair to say? and as such I fear it is a bad move by AMD. They should have waited until they have gained a bit more respect by producing CPU's that can compete with Intel.
Actually it will be the opposite.
Remember this, EVERY intel computer that ships with a discrete graphics card will now say either AMD or Nvidia, before it used to say ATi or Nvidia, and most people won't be aware ATI and AMD are one and the same.
Now every time the increasing market share of computers with AMD gpu's are sold people will be saying, hmm, AMD gpu, they make great gpu's, Intel don't make a GPU, I can get that same computer with a AMD processor in with the same GPU for cheaper, and maybe a AMD cpu will work faster with a AMD gpu...... hmmmmmmm.
Nothing to lose and a lot to gain, as guys like Dell are moving away from Nvidia and Apple are on their way to completely dumping them, more and more Intel based computers will have AMD parts in them.
Remember also that soon enough the vast majority of the AMD cpu line will have AMD gpu's in, it would be an advertising nightmare to try to explain to people that AMD and ATi gpu's are the same, so that same good gpu performance can now be had from AMD in their cpu's, its daft.
We'll also almost certainly see a push for laptops and desktops with intergrated gpu's that work well with and do optimus style switching between AMD gpu's and on die gpu's.
I'm not really sure why they didn't rename them when they got them .
Considering how tightly knit cpu/gpu's will get over the next couple years its ridiculous to have them as two separate brands. Even more so as the likely "winner" in performance in cheaper mass appeal cpu/gpu's will be the ones that can show a clear win in games.