There does seem to be some slight confusion with AMD's naming conventions. However, the reason I went with AMD is because in my opinion this slight marketing ploy (785g vs. 780g), is nothing on par with the tricks nVidia pulls. I've been stung with discrete cards, i.e. Geforce 4200 Ti to 5600 FX, as well as chipsets..6100 vs. 7025/7050. In both cases I wasn't overly improved with the performance increase and the trend seems to be continuing. I do like NVIDIA's driver stability and CUDA support but not so much these misleading names.
If you have an AMD 690g chipset you can be rest assured that the 780g will offer a nice boost in performance..and that the 785g will offer some cool CPU tweaks, as well as stream processing. Lets also not forget the huge overclocking potential of the 700 series chipsets.
I could have gone with Geforce 8200 onboard but I thought no..this time AMD gets the limelight for the reasons mentioned above. Having installed the 785g hardware and tinkered with some CPU+GPU overclocking, I am thoroughly impressed by the performance, features and stability of the product especially considering it's price. On the Intel side there is only Geforce 9200 IGP that would interest me, but why do that when Phenom II offers similar or better performance than Core 2 and in some cases, even core i3/i5/i7? There is not a big enough draw from Intel and if I want fast gaming I'd just get a discrete graphics card.