Which makes it ideal for the flagship camera because they almost always have dual processors and or maybe quad processors for this?
In these days of SoC processors with many cores (efficiency, power, GPU, etc) on one piece of silicon then the days of multiple discrete processors may be over.
On the other hand, multiple processors would spread heat hot spots and given the relatively low quantities used, it may be cheaper overall to use two in parallel rather than multiple types of processors. eg the volume for R1 would be very low but sharing a processor amongst a number of bodies (2 in R1) would mean having one SKU to order and keep in stock.
The recent Apple M3 series shows at least 10 variants and they have sufficient volume to warrant them but the volume of M3 max 16 CPU/40 GPU/16 neural cores with 128GB shared memory is going to be much lower than the more basic versions.
M3 => 8/16/24GB shared memory => 3 SKUs
M3 pro => 12 core (2 memory options), => 2 SKUs
M3 max => 14 core (2 memory options), 16 core (3 memory options) => 5 SKUs
Reducing lithography line width makes processors more power efficient (and more transistors per area). Canon is relatively less power efficient compared to Sony (battery life using CIPA measurements). Mirrorless was always going to draw more power than DLSR but it would be good to get through a day of shooting with the R5 on one battery (YMMV).
A step improvement in this regard would be appreciated by future users.