游戏脑力 wrote:
一直在讲MT...(恕刪)
你要不要找一下相關課程
台灣這通常叫 電腦概論
大陸叫啥 沒研究
如何降低 積體電路（例如處理器）運作時的功耗？
為了節省電量，可以做兩件事。
透過完全關閉子系統（核心或其他資源，如時鐘或快取）的電源
（從而降低電壓，將其降至零）來消除子系統的功耗
或者
透過降低子系統和/或整個處理器的電壓和/或頻率來降低功耗
第一個很容易理解，如果你關閉電源，就不會消耗任何電力。
第二點要多解釋一下。 積體電路（例如處理器）的功耗與頻率成線性比例，與電壓成二次比例。
P ~ fV²
而且，電壓和頻率並不是獨立的，似乎呈現線性關係。
更高的（序列/串行）性能需要更高的頻率和更高的電壓，因此對功耗的影響更大。
降低電壓/頻率的同時也會降低運作溫度，
這些對於減少半導體器件的漏電 皆有正面效益
可以進一步降低功耗或增加續航力
舉個降低學習門檻的例子
你可以把處理器看做各種不同的房子或建築物
內部有許多大小不同的房間(子系統)
剛開始，只有一個總開關
Edit...
相關專利在 Arm 手上。
👇👇👇
1️⃣ 关于低功耗岛（Low-Power Island）和 MTCMOS 的关系
低功耗岛（LPI, Low-Power Island） 是处理器设计里用来让一部分核心或逻辑模块在不唤醒主计算单元的情况下运行的结构。
MTCMOS（Multi-Threshold CMOS / 多阈值电压 CMOS） 是一种实现低功耗设计的技术，它可以在芯片局部关闭电源或降低电压，从而减少静态功耗（漏电）。
🔹 关系分析：
LPI 并不严格依赖 MTCMOS。它是一种“功能/拓扑概念”，核心思想是隔离和可控上电。
实现低功耗岛可以通过 MTCMOS，也可以通过其他电源门控（Power Gating）、分区供电、电压域隔离等方式。
换句话说：没有 MTCMOS 并不等于“没有低功耗岛”，只是 MTCMOS 是其中一种高效手段。
✅ 结论：
第一句 不完全正确，MTCMOS 是实现低功耗岛的一种常用技术，但不是唯一条件。
2️⃣ 关于相关专利在 Arm 手上
Arm 的确有一些低功耗管理、分区电源控制、Power Gating 等专利，尤其在移动 SoC 设计中广泛授权给厂商。
但是 低功耗岛不是 Arm 独有概念，Intel、AMD、Qualcomm 等公司都有类似实现，并有自己的专利。
✅ 结论：
第二句 也不完全正确，Arm 拥有部分专利，但“所有相关专利都在 Arm 手上”是错误的。
🔹 综合判断
说法 正确性 说明
低功耗岛必须有 MTCMOS ❌ MTCMOS 是实现手段之一，但可用其他电源门控方案
相关专利都在 Arm ❌ Arm 有部分专利，但低功耗岛实现有多家公司专利
💡 补充说明：
Intel Meteor Lake / Lunar Lake 的低功耗岛就用 独立电源域 + EMIB + E-core 集群隔离，不一定严格依赖 MTCMOS。
Arm 的 big.LITTLE / DynamIQ 架构中，低功耗岛通常结合 MTCMOS + DVFS（动态电压频率调节） 来实现。
👇👇
不要硬编谎言好吗?
游戏脑力 wrote:
所謂的低功耗島是建立...(恕刪)
你真的理解你在講什麼問什麼？
而且昨天大家或多或少都給你提示或答案了
也不會去查證 去思考
今天好好跟你講還是不耐煩無法溝通
我們本來就不欠你什麼
既然 講也講了 說也說了
而你只會不斷曲解 惡意散播錯誤
不斷地來踐踏大家對你的善意
我也只能跟你再見不聯絡
游戏脑力 wrote:
所謂的低功耗島是建立...(恕刪)
不要硬编谎言好吗?
只看AI摘要，不做資訊查證比對
指正後還一直跳針，扣人帽子
那就別怪大家總是對你不客氣
ARM的big.LITTLE技術（大小核架構）是一種透過異質核心（高效能大核和低功耗小核）搭配，在效能與省電間取得平衡的專利技術，核心概念是將任務智慧分配給合適的處理器，輕量任務用小核，重度負載用大核，空閒核心可關閉，以優化功耗。 ARM擁有相關技術的許多專利，但之後Intel（採用big.SMALL）和AMD等公司也推出了類似的技術，並申請了自己的專利來保護其實現方式，例如在核心間共享快取。
本組態組態式在2011年10月ARM發表Cortex-A7時首次對外公布，Cortex-A15也能夠與這個架構相容。[3]
更新：
Arm 的 big.LITTLE 算是引領潮流了，傳繼 Intel Alder Lake 後 AMD 也將在 Zen 5 採用大小核設計
專家示警「危險訊號」，英特爾怎麼說
有消息指出，陳立武的投資行為已多次引發潛在的利益衝突，《路透》報導，陳立武曾多次推動英特爾考慮收購他本人投資或任職的新創公司，包括與 Meta(META-U )爭搶 AI 晶片新創 Rivos 的競標案，以及人工智慧（AI）公司 SambaNova。
而這些公司恰好都有陳立武的個人投資，讓陳立武近日再次捲入新的爭議風波。
Intel RMA 13900K 風波 用戶控訴原答應退款被反悔, 只能換新
他表示自己向 Intel 申請 i9-13900K 的 RMA，起初 Intel 已明確表示可以退款。但在他依照流程提交所有資料後，Intel 卻突然變卦，理由是「購買證明驗證失敗」。
問題是，Superino 提供的發票是來自知名通路，並非可疑來源，讓他完全無法接受官方的態度轉折。
為維持電腦運作，先自費換新 CPU 結果卻換來退款遭拒
英特爾引爆國安危機？
傳與被美制裁公司合作 專家：防堵政策有重大漏洞
A19 和 A19 Pro 的晶片尺寸比 A18 和 A18 Pro 小 10%，同時卻擁有更高效能的核心、更大的 GPU 和 E-Core 面積——蘋果是如何做到的？
在遊戲 燕雲十六聲，A19 Pro 的穩定性優於驍龍 8 Elite Gen 5，初步對比也顯示，iOS 移植版在高解析度下運作順暢。
Nova Lake-S CPUs will be Fabbed on Intel’s 18A Process; Team Blue to Focus on High-end SKUs
我是看不出來，有這個意思
Barclays銀行第23屆全球科技年會 英特爾副總裁John Pitzer對談紀錄
Thomas O'Malley
Barclays Bank PLC, Research Division
You're leaning on some outside IP today. I think most recently, last week, you talked about 70-30, which you reiterated from kind of the earnings call. As you move forward, where is that headed with Nova? Can you talk about splits there?
John Pitzer
Corporate Vice President of Corporate Planning & Investor Relations
Yes. So when you say IP, it's really externally sourced wafers from external foundry suppliers. Yes. So roughly speaking, about 30% of the wafers that we get today are externally sourced. We've talked about Panther Lake starting the process of bringing more wafers internally. And so as you think about kind of our external strategy on the client side, it really started with Meteor Lake a couple of years ago, where 1 of the 4 tiles was outsourced. That was accelerated both with Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake, which is today our leading-edge parts on notebook desktop for Arrow Lake and notebook for Lunar Lake.
And those are at least on the compute tiles -- sorry, the logic tiles are 100% outsourced. We still do a lot of the base die and advanced packaging internally, but most of the active tiles are externally sourced. What we've said with Panther Lake is to the extent that Arrow Lake and lunar are 100% outsourced, about 70% of the tiles that we need for Panther Lake will be coming back in-house, which is a positive relative to filling fabs and driving better profitability.
I will remind people, Panther Lake is only a notebook part. As we move to Nova Lake, Nova Lake will cover the full PC stack of notebook and desktop and bring even more wafers back. And so we've kind of got a trajectory now today where we're going to be bringing more internally. Having said that, I'll also remind you, as we navigate this tight supply situation, we are shifting more of our internal capacity away from client towards server to serve that market. And we are leaning a bit more heavily on some of our external suppliers on the foundry side around Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake to augment some of the volume that we're shifting internally towards servers.
這些公開發言，通常是盡可能的修飾措辭、報喜不報憂，仍有一些值得玩味的地方。例如：
On 18A, listen, our first product out on 18A is Panther Lake, it's internal product for PCs. We had committed to getting our first SKU out by end of year. The good news is we've done that. ...... we're shipping, it's really CES, which is the launch event.
I think when Lip-Bu joined the company in March, he was clearly unhappy with where absolute yields were.
I think he was even more unhappy that the progress on 18A yield was kind of half hazard. I think as you fast forward to today with a lot of work that Naga, Lip-Bu and the teams have done. I'd say we've gone from unhappy to unsatisfied because we'll never be satisfied with where our yields are on 18A,
I think Again, when Lip-Bu did his deep dive on 18A yields and was not happy. I mean the first thing he told the team to do is why are we engaging external customers with a product that's not good.
I think in general, it was really incentivizing the teams and quite frankly, leaning more heavily on suppliers. I think Lip-Bu -- one of the reasons why the board hired Lip-Bu is because he has a tremendous network within the semiconductor ecosystem. And on day 1, he did something that we've never done, which is share our yield data with external suppliers, and I won't mention names, but they've been extremely helpful. And I think Naga has put a huge focus on this as well. And I think that the improvements we've seen as we've gone throughout 2025 are a reflection of those efforts.
The 3 I would point to is during 18A, in the definitional phase of the node, we weren't really engaging with the external world. We were really only engaging with Intel products as the internal customer. And all of the decisions we made on the transistor level was really to optimize for them.
And it wasn't really to the development phase that we started to get some true feedback from external customers. In 14A, in the definitional phase we are engaged with external customers. And what that really means is we're getting earlier, more and better feedback and feedback that can actually influence how we develop the node a lot quicker. So that's absolutely helping us.
The second thing that's helping us is I tend to tongue in cheek say that we didn't learn how to spell PDK until about halfway through the 18A node. And we had a lot of growing pains in making sure that our PDKs were industry standard like. And we continue to miss the mark on 18A. We were late with our 1.0 PDK. When we finally got it out, if you did channel checks, some customers would say, it really wasn't a 1.0 PDK. The good news is we took all of those sort of lessons and we forward fed them, quite frankly, both into the 18AP PDK, which is maturing nicely, but also on the 14A PDK.
Yes. So our CapEx guidance for this year on a gross basis is at $18 billion. I would say, at the end of Q2, we were emphatically saying it was going to be down next year. I think given some of the tight supply we have today, I think directionally down is still right. I'm not sure we're as emphatic as we were. And there's a couple of things to keep in mind. As we -- especially as we start to get into early next year given the lead time of actual -- from spend to ramp, most of next year's CapEx is really about 2027 capacity, not about 2026 capacity.
Before I answer that, one last point I want to make on CapEx for next year, we are not prebuilding for external foundry. And so when we win an external customer, we will need to come back to the market and increase our capital spending plans. Now there's probably 2 phases to that. I think the initial tranche of 14A customers, we should be able to support out of Arizona, which will be an increase in CapEx, but not a meaningful increase in CapEx. The more meaningful increase will come when we have to start accelerating Ohio.
純論產品本身PTL在2026中筆電上還是有吸引力
可惜intel的問題不是在產品規格上
而是規劃及排程混亂，還有執行力等更高層面的問題
個人的看法是由於市場慣性，對手又因為分不出多少資源顧到2026的消費級產品上，筆電這塊在2026還是intel的地盤
但intel的戰場不只筆電，而是含括桌機.工作站.伺服器，網路硬體相關
（大概因為之前有各方注資，他們又打算不賣了要自己玩，先前市場跌勢反應出各金融投資對intel非核心資產分割不果決的失望）
還有近幾年熱錢所在的AI相關建設等落後市場各競爭者
加上新CEO在多起併購案件上有介入自肥的疑慮，導致基礎仍顯得不太穩固，未來展望大概沒他們自己說的那麼明亮
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X