Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

eish2306

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 30, 2013
176
49
Wales
The computer would run on the apple silicon and would enable the intel one for Bootcamp or intel specific applications and hardware - ie each bit of silicon would run whatever its best suited to run!

This would obviously be costly so I assume only the pro machines would get this option.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hexley

netkas

macrumors 65816
Oct 2, 2007
1,188
383
you already have it on T2 macs, t2 is apple cpu running watchos-like operating system. :D
 

wyrdness

macrumors regular
Dec 2, 2008
164
148
Why would Apple want to go to all of that trouble and expense to allow people to run competitors operating systems?
They're only interested in the advantages that their own silicon gives them.
It's only a small percentage of Mac users who want to run Windows apps anyway.
 

eish2306

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 30, 2013
176
49
Wales
Why would Apple want to go to all of that trouble and expense to allow people to run competitors operating systems?
They're only interested in the advantages that their own silicon gives them.
It's only a small percentage of Mac users who want to run Windows apps anyway.
probably concentrated amongst the ones who buy the higher end pro machines - I would rather pay extra for an extra chip which runs windows etc for the occasional use than have to buy a separate machine
They spent a lot of time selling bootcamp as a feature so to go cold turkey on that, is a bit odd
 

jz0309

Contributor
Sep 25, 2018
5,956
16,457
Temecula, CA
there is no (or maybe an extremely limited) market for that, plus, the system would have to get a whole lot bigger too, and, as you stated, very expensive
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyrdness

Rastafabi

macrumors 6502
Mar 12, 2013
320
152
Europe
probably concentrated amongst the ones who buy the higher end pro machines - I would rather pay extra for an extra chip which runs windows etc for the occasional use than have to buy a separate machine
They spent a lot of time selling bootcamp as a feature so to go cold turkey on that, is a bit odd
And they have not. Craig Federighi recently said, that there aren’t any technical limitations keeping Microsoft from licensing an ARM version of windows for end users to be installed on apple silicon macs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy James

Gnattu

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2020
997
1,353
probably concentrated amongst the ones who buy the higher end pro machines - I would rather pay extra for an extra chip which runs windows etc for the occasional use than have to buy a separate machine
They spent a lot of time selling bootcamp as a feature so to go cold turkey on that, is a bit odd
The price for adding a second chip( and the system built around that chip) will cost you no less just buy another windows pc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MevetS and chabig

MevetS

Cancelled
Dec 27, 2018
374
302
Once upon a time I owned a similar beast. A PowerMac G3 with an Orange Micro i386 board inside. One box that functioned as two computers.

I wonder if you could just use a compute stick these days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate Spencer

DeltaMac

macrumors G5
Jul 30, 2003
12,302
3,725
Delaware
And, a pro-level machine user would probably be doing the same as many pros do: Run the system that you need in a virtual machine.
I expect that the Apple silicon won't be a huge challenge for the folks that code for VM apps.
 

velocityg4

macrumors 604
Dec 19, 2004
6,899
4,057
Georgia
Heck ya! Apple already did this back in the day.
bxv4f46fp5h31.jpg


I can see why Apple wouldn't do this.
- Cost would be ridiculous. I couldn't even imagine the tech hurdles of giving both CPU direct access to the RAM and PCIe bus. Plus they'd have to use discrete graphics.
- It would hinder the ARM transition. Why would third party devs bother making universal software. When they could stick with x86. Unless they were trying to unify iOS and macOS developement.
- The majority of Mac users don't need it nor care about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luposian and MevetS

laptech

macrumors 68000
Apr 26, 2013
1,645
2,028
Earth
In theory it should be possible. Mac's that have dedicated GPU's also have the GPU that is built into the Intel CPU. Both GPU's have access to the same onboard memory and storage, they just have their signals sent down different paths. The same could be done for both ARM and Intel on one board BUT remember this, ARM chips have been out for many years and such, such an idea has not interested any of the big PC motherboard manufacturers because no such thing has been built. Therefore, if any one of the manufacturers thought there was commercial value in making such a dual system, it would have been done already. The fact it hasn't means there cannot be much demand for such a system.
 

Nate Spencer

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2015
54
30
There were cards for Macs, Amigas, even Acorn ARMs. Seems to me depending on your work needs on Windows/AMD64 Linux RDP or remoting into a VM or PC. I personally have an HP Probook Ryzen I just moved my two VM from Fusion to Workstation the non commercial edition. As cheap as PCs are just buy a PC or if you could even lease a VM on the cloud.
 

ww1971

macrumors regular
Jul 15, 2011
132
35
The computer would run on the apple silicon and would enable the intel one for Bootcamp or intel specific applications and hardware - ie each bit of silicon would run whatever its best suited to run!

This would obviously be costly so I assume only the pro machines would get this option.

you can’t have that. Because the computer with system on chip is not designed to cater for both arm and intel. And it would be very messy and run in big problems particularly with heat
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nate Spencer

ww1971

macrumors regular
Jul 15, 2011
132
35
you already have it on T2 macs, t2 is apple cpu running watchos-like operating system. :D

but intel machines with T2 chip cannot run iOS software or iOS based operating systems unless the app is designed to work with both iPad and Mac through catalyst
 

Luposian

macrumors 6502
Apr 10, 2005
309
188
This, people, is the right answer.
Amen! Let PC’s run Windows and Macs run MacOS! And nare the twain shall meet... ever again, I hope!

However, if MS makes a version of Windows 10 for AS Macs, that’s an acceptable alternative, if people are desparate enough to use it. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyrdness

ian87w

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2020
6,901
9,686
Indonesia
The computer would run on the apple silicon and would enable the intel one for Bootcamp or intel specific applications and hardware - ie each bit of silicon would run whatever its best suited to run!

This would obviously be costly so I assume only the pro machines would get this option.
It would be a waste of motherboard space, as the intel chip will require additional components like RAM, controllers, etc, and it will also bloat macOS for longer than necessary. I bet Apple is itching to drop x86 support on macOS (and all the legacy stuff with it) like a hot potato.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyrdness

haralds

macrumors 68020
Jan 3, 2014
2,205
869
Silicon Valley, CA
The computer would run on the apple silicon and would enable the intel one for Bootcamp or intel specific applications and hardware - ie each bit of silicon would run whatever its best suited to run!

This would obviously be costly so I assume only the pro machines would get this option.
There are a number of reasons for that being very unlikely:
- Little real market demand at Apple scale
- SoC encapsulation would require the Intel part to have a complete subsystem with RAM etc. incl. GPU, since a lot of people want Intel for games
- Hypervisor with Rosetta2 emulated Intel machines will give plenty of performance equivalent to that of avg machines a few years ago. Scale that up to M2 or M3 high end SoC systems
- MS will likely make their ARM based version of Windows 10 available including an x86 and x64 code translation environment. They already have that on other systems.

There is nothing to prevent a third party from going bankrupt trying to implement a daughter board still hampered by poor graphics access.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyrdness

JMacHack

Suspended
Mar 16, 2017
1,965
2,412
I imagine getting that to work would be a massive pain for very little real value.

A few reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
- The Intel CPU would have to access everything through the M-series SoC, RAM, Storage, I/O, all the critical stuff. It would just hobble performance on chips already hobbled.
- Instead of programming for the new architecture, devs would just get lazy and just let it run on the (hobbled) Intel CPU.
- It would theoretically introduce security holes in Apple's SoC, since it has to address the same resources.

Taking this into account, Rosetta 2 is probably less resource intensive and glitchy.

Also, thinking of "Pro" Machines, I imagine you'll be able to slot one of these in an M-Series Mac Pro:
 
  • Like
Reactions: leman and wyrdness
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.