Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that the 7448 isn't more powerful than the 7457, I think I remember seeing a 1.6GHz one outpacing a 2GHz 7448.​

It really comes down to whether the code/application being run has a need for taking advantage of a L3 cache. For something like compiling, that L3 probably comes in fairly handy for the 7457. For other, more generalized needs, the L3 cache may not be called upon, leaving the difference in performance between a 7457 and a 7448, clock speed for clock speed, slightly in favour of the 7448, for taking advantage of its improved L2 cache over the 7447/7457.

One area where the 7448 is liable to do well, regardless, is keeping cooler. For a laptop, this is kind of handy.
 
That's for sure. I still long for a 7448 to put in my iBook, I just have never seen one for sale anywhere, nor have I seen 7457s, just 55s and below. I don't do a lot of compiling on this thing, so the L3 hit is fine.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amethyst1
Ah, so there were. I'd consider buying two dead 1.0s (and, I dunno, "resto-modding" them with a PPC Notebook motherboard if they ever release one in a small size I guess), but then I'd run the risk of the dead thing being the CPU. That LEM article suggests they would be a pretty compelling upgrade with double the max cache over the 7455, though... maybe in a couple years.
It also says that the 7457 was never used by Apple, so... a giant pile of rock-sized salt granules.​
 
I might want to create a spin-off topic called "how many times you have actually fixed something by resetting the parameter ram?"
Well, I was thinking about it, and I've used it once, but it didn't address the issue. So, none for me. I believe back in the day it could address issues though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lepidotós
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.