Not sure where this thread fits but anyone remember the days when apple used to include 2 processors in a Mac? A PPC CPU and an Intel CPU for the macs with the PC Compatibility card, and before then a 68K CPU and an Apple II Pro DOS or whatever CPU for running Apple II software. The question is could apple do this again? Perhaps the Apple Silicon and also an Intel CPU for running Windows natively?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2 processors in a Mac?
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I run Windows 11 ARM on my M1 Pro MacBook Pro in a virtual machine. The Geekbench 5 scores using the virtual machine are higher than what I get on my i7-10700 Windows desktop. It's not going to run games well but it runs the Windows programs that I need to run so that I don't need a Windows system.
They're literally never going back to Intel.
Some of the late Intel Macs (such as the 2020 iMac) have a "main" Intel CPU, and a secondary Arm (T2) for things like video encoding. It's not the same as using one CPU for MacOS and one for Windows, but it's still a case of two architectures in the same machine.
Maybe for something like a Mac Pro for compatibility but it would negate all the power saving features for a MacBook or thermal advantages for an iMac.
I think we're more likely to see dual Apple Silicon processors in Mac Pro.
I think we're more likely to see dual Apple Silicon processors in Mac Pro.
That may be the case. In the old days the dual processor move caused allot of problems. Remember? PC compatibility cards caused issues with Mac OS 7-9.x in those days I remember them well. I remember briefly the Apple II ProDOS card in the Mac and using a machine at school but I dont remember many problems.
How will dual processors in the Mac Pro make the mac faster and with not all the problems of the past?
I dont understand. A mac with a 68K main CPU and a Apple II proDOS CPU were entirely different. For example apple II software (which by the way I grew up on back in elementary school) did not run on the Mac without the card.
I would hope not. But.. One will miss the advantage of booting into windows.
The M1 Ultra is essentially a 2x M1 Max already.
The average user isn't going to use an x86 processor just to run Windows. I doubt Apple will do this, even on a Mac Studio. Apple is trying to run away from Intel, not get closer. Also, the price is way too much for an Intel CPU.
Seemsmlikenapplenisnonlymgoingnto run 1 architecture (I don’t think they are headed back towards Intel or windows in any way). And with current ARM architecture of A series and M series chips, it seems like it’s all going to be System on a chip rather than multiple chips. Even with a massive amount of CPU and GPU cores, large quantities of RAM, ANE, controllers, buses, encoders, and everything else, it’s still likely to all be packaged in one SoC. Maybe that won’t be the case with Mac Pro and it will be multiple chips stacked, but I don’t think so. Anything beyond “Ultra” will likely be huge chips.
Running two distinct systems on one machine has always been a niche / fringe thing. Especially running them simultaneously, as opposed to dual booting a la Boot Camp.
These days, I just don’t see the need. Within rounding, zero people need (or even want) high performance siamese systems. Anybody who runs two systems and needs high performance and needs both running at the same time … is going to have two systems. Remote control is trivial these days, and the two systems can share the same FiberChannel SAN if they really need simultaneous high-speed access to the same data.
If you don’t need high performance … then you just get two cheap systems. Or you just get one and emulate the other. Same thing if you don’t need simultaneous: dual boot, or get another system if (as is so often the case) dual booting doesn’t work all that great for what you need.
So … at most, perhaps Apple might built a Mac Pro that has multiple M? motherboards. That would actually make for an interesting small supercomputer. But people aren’t using MacOS for massively parallel supercomputing, so even that would be unlikely.
Of course, we already see M? systems with multiple cores on the single SIP, and there’s every reason to expect that count to skyrocket. I won’t at all be surprised if we see a 256-core M? system in the next few years.
And if that’s not powerful enough for whatever you’re doing … again, you’re probably not using MacOS in the first place (or you don’t care about the operating system).
b&
These days, I just don’t see the need. Within rounding, zero people need (or even want) high performance siamese systems. Anybody who runs two systems and needs high performance and needs both running at the same time … is going to have two systems. Remote control is trivial these days, and the two systems can share the same FiberChannel SAN if they really need simultaneous high-speed access to the same data.
If you don’t need high performance … then you just get two cheap systems. Or you just get one and emulate the other. Same thing if you don’t need simultaneous: dual boot, or get another system if (as is so often the case) dual booting doesn’t work all that great for what you need.
So … at most, perhaps Apple might built a Mac Pro that has multiple M? motherboards. That would actually make for an interesting small supercomputer. But people aren’t using MacOS for massively parallel supercomputing, so even that would be unlikely.
Of course, we already see M? systems with multiple cores on the single SIP, and there’s every reason to expect that count to skyrocket. I won’t at all be surprised if we see a 256-core M? system in the next few years.
And if that’s not powerful enough for whatever you’re doing … again, you’re probably not using MacOS in the first place (or you don’t care about the operating system).
b&
They have done this with the T2 + Intel Macs and I'm confident in saying that they have been the worst Intel Macs ever.
So far everything I have tried ran well except for visual studio. I tried that for 2 seconds and ran back to my dedicated dev lenovo.... way too much of a hog.
I didn't have a Mac back then. My first Mac was a 13" Intel MacBook Pro that I have around somewhere. I used it till the QAZ row of keys died.
Don't high end Windows workstations have dual Intel Xeon processors or is that a thing of the past? I think they made it work.
It did back in the day. The last one was the 2012 model. The Power Mac G4s and G5s before that also came in dual-CPU models.
But why? It's Microsoft's job to get Windows on ARM going. Do you want that extra Intel CPU to be fast and at no additional costs too? In any case, it would ruin battery life. So, no!
The Intel Mac Pro started at $6000, the Mac Studio at $2000. So a hybrid would be $8000 in its lowest configuration?
I know the older Mac pros have it, but not sure about the latest one. That’s way out of my budget anyway 😂
You're not going to see two physical Apple Silicon SoCs. Apple already espoused the virtues of not doing dual-processor Apple Silicon Macs this way when they announced that the M1 Ultra was their way of doing dual-processor M1 Max SoCs without producing a second die. Apple will play the "UltraFusion" card all the way here.
It's not the same implementation of two architectures on the same Mac that you're thinking of. The T2 runs its own OS and is primarily working in service, as an entire secondary computer, to the Intel Mac. It's not running Apple Silicon code natively on an Intel Mac.
All of this has already happened. There is an ARM64 native version of Visual Studio running on ARM64 native versions of Windows 10 and Windows 11 and Microsoft already has custom SoCs in the form of the SQ1, SQ2, and now, SQ3 running on the Surface Pro X, the second generation Surface Pro X, and the LTE version of the Surface Pro 9, respectively.
Nah. Intel will recover as they did in the mid-2000s. ARM has already surpassed x86 in performance per watt and Apple is not going to look backwards in this regard, even if Intel regains footing in the x86 wars with AMD.
Yeah they had processor cards for Apple II's
Apple II processor cards - Wikipedia
Short answer no.
Why Apple doesn't want you to expand and prolong the use of your computer, they want to sell you more gear.
Just look at the lineup. No user replaceable stuff. Not even external GPU's.
The next version of the MacPro will be telling to see if they bless this system with expansion, but if they do you might as well give them your first born to them for the privilege, because it will be ridiculously expensive.
Also Emulation can take place of needing to run stuff.