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.
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.
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.
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.
I actually had an issue once that a PRAM reset fixed. I totally forget what it was though, but I specifically remember being pleased that I didn't have to do anything else.