中国新能源车厂正在放宽限制，尝试让更多“消费级”芯片上车

Note: The English version is provided below.

近日，在直播镜头前，小米创始人雷军高调展示了小米YU7的一项“创新”——一款号称达到了车规级标准的纸巾盒。与此同时，YU7的智能座舱芯片却采用了高通的消费级旗舰芯片骁龙8 Gen 3，这一反差引发了舆论热议：纸巾盒尚且车规，座舱芯片却“偷工减料”？

这场关于“车规级”与“消费级”芯片的争论并非无的放矢。事实上，在中国新能源车竞争愈发激烈的背景下，越来越多整车厂正在重新定义“上车”的标准，消费级芯片正成为智能座舱的“常客”。

从“偷工减料”到“理性取舍”：车规芯片的角色正在改变

传统燃油车领域的一个共识，就是汽车电子必须使用车规级芯片，才能在极端环境下保证可靠性。然而事实正在发生转变。以小米YU7为例，其座舱主控芯片骁龙8 Gen 3虽然未获得单颗芯片层面的AEC-Q100车规认证，却通过了模组级的AEC-Q104测试，能满足一定环境标准。

“这不是偷工减料，而是工程上的权衡取舍。”一位汽车座舱方案供应商负责人向与非网记者表示。实际上，智能座舱中除了仪表显示部分需要满足ASIL-B等级外，娱乐信息系统并无强制的功能安全要求。这为“消费级上车”提供了合法合规的技术缝隙。

为什么让消费级芯片上车？性能、成本与开发周期的三重诱因

选择骁龙8 Gen 3而非车规版的SA8295P，小米的理由直截了当：更快、更便宜。

据供应链人士透露，骁龙8 Gen 3售价约为160美元，而8295则在200-250美元之间。两者性能相近，甚至前者在GPU算力、多媒体渲染和开机速度上更胜一筹。对于追求用户体验的小米而言，“用性能跑分说话”是熟悉的打法。

“芯片设计本身没有原罪，关键看用在哪儿、怎么用。”上述业内人士补充道。

此外，消费级芯片的生命周期短、升级快，也更契合中国新能源车3C式的迭代节奏——如今，一款新车从立项到上市只需12-18个月，一年一换的“手机造车”节奏下，传统车规芯片的设计周期和供货节奏已难以满足需求。

谁还在这么做？特斯拉和比亚迪正在改写规则

小米并非孤例。在过去几年中，包括特斯拉、比亚迪、极氪在内的多家厂商均曾采用过消费级芯片进行座舱部署。

早在2016年，特斯拉Model S就使用了英伟达Tegra 3芯片，后续因该芯片老化造成MCU故障，最终引发上百万辆汽车召回。比亚迪的汉、唐、宋部分早期车型也曾搭载高通骁龙6系列手机芯片，用户普遍反馈车机卡顿、死机，最终不得不在后续版本回归车规芯片。

但这并未阻止消费级芯片继续“上车”。近年在芯片短缺、高端车机体验升级的双重推动下，不少厂商选择“冒险”——在安全边界可控的情况下以消费级换取更佳性能与成本表现。

甚至比亚迪的豪华品牌仰望U8，也采用了骁龙8 Gen1这款消费级芯片，其主频可达3.2GHz，辅以16GB内存与256GB存储，堪比一台旗舰手机。

从“合规”到“合理”之间的灰色地带：监管的模糊与厂商的自由裁量

按ISO 26262标准，仅控制刹车、转向等关键安全系统的芯片强制要求车规级认证；智能座舱、信息娱乐等子系统并不强制。因此，对于消费级芯片的使用，目前尚处于一种“合法但不明朗”的政策真空地带。

“现在的问题不是能不能用，而是用的边界在哪，谁来负责。”中国某车规芯片专家指出。一方面，AEC-Q认证并非安全性的唯一保障；另一方面，厂商若缺乏长期稳定的质量验证体系，消费者终将为“体验优先”买单。

车规级芯片为何贵？八大维度撑起价格“护城河”

与消费级芯片相比，车规级芯片价格往往高出20%-30%，背后是对极端环境、可靠性、冗余设计的系统性要求。

例如：

工作温度范围需达-40℃至125℃；

需通过抗振动、EMC电磁兼容、三温测试等冗长流程；

通常需10-15年寿命保障；

良率要求小于1ppm（百万分之一）；

需符合ISO 26262功能安全与IATF 16949质量体系认证等。

这些苛刻标准背后的成本，不止是工艺，更是时间、验证、风险与责任的沉淀。

评论：消费级上车不是“降级”，而是行业对现实的妥协

中国新能源汽车产业正站在一个转折点上：一方面是“体验导向”的极致追求，另一方面是“可靠为先”的工程本分。

让消费级芯片“合法上车”并不是倒退，而是一种阶段性的技术和产业过渡。尤其在舱驾分离的设计架构下，将关键功能保留在车规MCU/SoC中，娱乐部分交由高性能消费级芯片处理，本质上是一种“主从协作”的风险控制手段。

“车规级”是否真的重要？取决于整车厂如何定义“车”。如果将汽车定义为短周期快消费品，那么消费级芯片或许足矣；但若仍视其为交通工具、生命载体，那么任何一个看似“过剩”的认证，都是最基本的守护。

Chinese EV Makers Are Loosening Restrictions, Letting More “Consumer-Grade” Chips Into Cars

— The Boundaries of Automotive-Grade Chips Are Being Redefined by Technology and Market Forces

Summary:Chinese EV makers are relaxing chip qualification standards, increasingly adopting consumer-grade processors in non-critical systems like smart cockpits. The use of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 in Xiaomi’s YU7 sparked debate, highlighting automakers’ pragmatic trade-offs between performance, cost, and development speed.

Recently, Xiaomi founder Lei Jun made headlines during a livestream by showcasing a seemingly unusual “innovation” in the YU7 electric vehicle—a tissue box that reportedly meets automotive-grade standards. Ironically, the YU7’s smart cockpit runs on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, a flagship consumer-grade chip. This contrast sparked widespread debate: if the tissue box is automotive-grade, why isn’t the cockpit processor?

This controversy over “automotive-grade” versus “consumer-grade” chips is far from trivial. Amid intensifying competition in China’s new energy vehicle market, more automakers are quietly redefining what qualifies to “go onboard.” Consumer-grade chips are fast becoming a common fixture in smart cockpit systems.

From “Cutting Corners” to “Strategic Trade-offs”: The Role of Automotive Chips Is Evolving

In the internal combustion engine era, the consensus was that automotive electronics must use chips certified to automotive-grade standards to ensure reliability in extreme environments. But this paradigm is shifting. Take Xiaomi’s YU7, for instance. Its Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 SoC lacks chip-level AEC-Q100 automotive certification, yet it passed module-level AEC-Q104 tests—meeting certain environmental standards.

“This isn’t about cutting corners—it’s an engineering trade-off,” a smart cockpit supplier told EEfocus. In fact, aside from the instrument cluster, infotainment systems are not subject to mandatory safety requirements such as ASIL-B (Automotive Safety Integrity Level B). This leaves a legitimate, technically compliant gray zone for consumer-grade chips to enter.

Why Use Consumer-Grade Chips? A Triple Incentive: Performance, Cost, and Speed

Choosing the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 over the automotive-grade SA8295P, Xiaomi’s rationale was straightforward: better performance at a lower cost.

According to supply chain insiders, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 is priced at around $160, while the SA8295P ranges from $200 to $250. The two offer comparable performance, with the former even outperforming in GPU capability, multimedia rendering, and boot-up speed. For Xiaomi—a brand that prioritizes user experience—benchmark-driven performance is a familiar tactic.

“There’s no original sin in chip design. What matters is where it’s used and how it’s implemented,” the insider added.

Additionally, consumer-grade chips offer shorter life cycles and faster upgrades, which align better with the rapid iteration cycle of Chinese NEVs. With new models going from concept to production in just 12–18 months, traditional automotive chip design and supply timelines often fall short.

Who Else Is Doing This? Tesla and BYD Are Changing the Rules

Xiaomi is not alone. In recent years, Tesla, BYD, and Zeekr have all deployed consumer-grade chips in their cockpit systems.

Back in 2016, Tesla’s Model S used NVIDIA’s consumer-grade Tegra 3 chip, which later suffered from degradation, causing MCU failures and a recall of over a million vehicles. Early BYD models—such as the Han, Tang, and Song—also used Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 6-series mobile chips. Users frequently reported lag and crashes, eventually forcing BYD to return to automotive-grade solutions in later versions.

Yet this hasn’t stopped the trend. Driven by chip shortages and rising expectations for in-car experiences, more automakers are opting to “take the risk”—using consumer chips when safety boundaries are manageable to gain performance and cost advantages.

Even BYD’s premium brand Yangwang U8 uses the consumer-grade Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, clocked at 3.2GHz and paired with 16GB RAM and 256GB storage—specs rivaling top-tier smartphones.

From “Compliance” to “Pragmatism”: Regulatory Gray Zones and Manufacturer Discretion

According to ISO 26262 standards, only chips involved in safety-critical systems like braking and steering must be automotive-certified. Infotainment and smart cockpit chips are exempt. This has created a “legal but ambiguous” regulatory vacuum around the use of consumer-grade components.

“The question isn’t whether they can be used—but where the boundary lies, and who bears the responsibility,” said an expert in automotive chip certification. While AEC-Q compliance is not the sole benchmark for safety, manufacturers without long-term, stable quality validation systems may be placing consumers at risk in the name of better experience.

Why Are Automotive Chips More Expensive? Eight Dimensions Behind the Premium

Automotive-grade chips typically cost 20–30% more than their consumer counterparts due to far stricter design and validation requirements.

Key differences include:

Operating temperature range of -40°C to 125°C

Required to pass vibration, EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility), and thermal cycling tests

10–15 year lifespan to match vehicle service life

Defect rates below 1ppm (parts per million)

Compliance with ISO 26262 functional safety and IATF 16949 quality management standards

These costs reflect not only fabrication complexity but also time, verification, and responsibility built into the process.

Commentary: Consumer-Grade Chips Are Not a Downgrade—They Reflect Industry Realism

China’s NEV industry is at an inflection point—caught between the pursuit of ultimate user experience and the engineering imperative of reliability.

Allowing consumer-grade chips in vehicles is not regression—it’s a pragmatic, transitional step for the industry. Especially under cockpit-control unit decoupling architectures, where core functions remain on automotive-grade MCUs or SoCs, while consumer chips handle high-performance infotainment, this host-client model is a calculated approach to balancing risk and reward.

So, does “automotive-grade” still matter? That depends on how one defines a car. If it's seen as a short-cycle, fast-upgrade electronic product, consumer-grade chips may suffice. But if a vehicle is still considered a life-critical transportation system, then every “excessive” certification is, in truth, a fundamental safeguard.