2 processors in a Mac?

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?

jwolf6589 said:

The question is could apple do this again?

Technically possible but unlikely.

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.

jwolf6589 said:

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?

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.

russell_314 said:

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.

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?

Nermal said:

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.

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.

E-MO-TION said:

They're literally never going back to Intel.

I would hope not. But.. One will miss the advantage of booting into windows.

pshufd said:

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.

I see

russell_314 said:

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.

The M1 Ultra is essentially a 2x M1 Max already.

jwolf6589 said:

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?

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.

It is my belief that Microsoft is actually solving this problem, and creating more headaches for Intel, as they realize the benefits of Arm. The M1 is revolutionary in that Apple had a chip problem and instead of working with Intel…again, they basically said “enough, we can do this better on our own”.

Microsoft will likely have their own arm chips (but they can’t call it the “M1” 🤣) in the not too distant future. Once that happens, they will have a fully functional Windows OS for arm and likely a compiler for dual x86/arm software.

I don’t see Apple going back to Intel anytime soon for anything other than possibly manufacturing. Intel dug themselves a deep hole and it will take quite a bit for them to regain the stature they held in 2006.

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&

jwolf6589 said:

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?

They have done this with the T2 + Intel Macs and I'm confident in saying that they have been the worst Intel Macs ever.