Eddie, By definition, mediocre means nearly average, not poor. But, let's be real. AMD can't compete effectively against Intel's previous generation except by lowering their costs. Intel's previous generation is better than AMD's current, and by a lot. So, calling it mediocre was generous. I could have called it poor, but, I agree it's a mainstream part.
Also, I'd much rather have a Q9550 than a 940, wouldn't you? It's faster and more power efficient. On the other hand, I'd really like the 790GX based motherboard, and the G45 leaves me a bit cold.
Waiting is exactly what people won't do. It's a great way to lose sales. If I need a computer, I'll get it now, not wait and hope AMD comes out with a more coherent product line.
Neiro, my point is, the processor shouldn't be AM2+, it should be AM3. You could still put it in an AM2+ if you wanted to shackle it with obsolete memory to save cost, but you wouldn't have to. You're also not considering that the memory controller runs at 1.8 GHz, instead of 2.0 GHz, and the L3 cache as well. You're equating the processor being AM2+ with using DDR2, and it's just not that simple.
For me, I will be considering a new motherboard and processor soon, and I wouldn't even consider DDR2, but I am looking at AMD, and that's why I'm so frustrated with them. I wouldn't want DDR2 mainly because it's a higher voltage part, and I don't have any machines that use it, and I'd rather standardize on DDR3. Especially with IGPs, the greater bandwidth can make a difference, but more than that is the faster memory controller and L3 cache.
I'm not really into shooting down space aliens, so AMD's IGPs are very, very attractive to me, but their processors blow. They don't make a proper dual-core, and they are so inferior to the Core 2 in power consumption it's hard to accept. Their product line has too many holes and is incoherent and non-linear. They need a real best processor, not one that is good at this, but inferior at other things. It's bizarre and very unusual. On top of that, they need a proper dual core. There are some people that are smart enough to know quad core is a waste for what they do, and dual core is more than enough. Quad core costs more, and can be slower since it's generally not going to be as overclockable, and chews up power. The K8 is their answer for this market?
It's bad enough they don't have a high-end processor, but to have so many holes, and weird situations where they have no real "best" processor, is just unsupportable. Whoever is doing marketing has to be fired, and soon. It's a confusing product line, and they really need to get some decent dual core processors out there soon.
I don't mean to be so hard on AMD, since the 720 is a decent processor and would no doubt be what I bought if I had to buy an AMD. But, the mistakes they are making are those of an incompetent management that seems to lack a coherent and effective vision of what their product line should be, and just throws out products without a clearer strategy. Their ATI product line, I think, is better thought out.