Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 vs NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark entries for either the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 or the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super. Consequently, there are no numeric performance scores, delta percentages, or win counts to compare directly between these two accelerators. Both devices sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, and both have an average benchmark score of zero, which reflects the absence of measured workloads rather than a literal performance of zero. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and neither product has a nearest rival listed.

Without measured frames per second, compute throughput values, or latency results, the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data captured in the database. The Intel part delivers a peak FP32 throughput of 44.44 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part delivers 2.089 TFLOPS in FP32. That places the Intel accelerator at roughly 21.3 times the FP32 rate of the NVIDIA module, a ratio derived from the recorded figures. In FP16, the Intel GPU also lists 44.44 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, whereas the NVIDIA GPU lists 4.178 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, making the Intel part 10.6 times faster in FP16 as recorded. These are the only quantitative performance deltas available from the database, and they are derived strictly from the specification fields, not from benchmark runs.

The Intel part also leads in memory bandwidth by a wide margin: 2.46 TB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, a 24.0 times advantage. The Intel GPU carries 96 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, while the NVIDIA module carries 8 GB of LPDDR5 across a 128-bit bus. The texture rate for the Intel GPU is recorded at 1,388.8 GTexel/s, versus 32.64 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part, a 42.5 times difference. Pixel rate, however, tells a different story: the Intel GPU lists 0 MPixel/s while the NVIDIA GPU lists 16.32 GPixel/s. This reflects that the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has no display outputs and effectively zero raster output pipeline performance in the recorded data, whereas the Jetson Orin Nano Super is an integrated graphics processor with a functional pixel pipeline.

The NVIDIA part wins on pixel fill rate, but the Intel part dominates in every compute and memory throughput metric that the database records. The absence of benchmark data means these specification-derived ratios stand as the primary head-to-head evidence.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 is the higher-throughput accelerator for raw compute and memory-intensive workloads. Its 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, 44.44 TFLOPS FP16, 96 GB HBM2e, and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth indicate a device intended for data center scale processing, with a thermal envelope of 450 W and an OAM module slot width. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super, with 2.089 TFLOPS FP32, 4.178 TFLOPS FP16, 8 GB LPDDR5, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, operates at 25 W and is an integrated graphics processor in a 70 mm by 45 mm package. The data shows a clear division: the Intel product targets high-throughput parallel compute in a server form factor, while the NVIDIA product targets compact, power-constrained edge or embedded deployment.

For workloads that require the absolute maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, the Intel accelerator is the only choice between these two, based on the recorded figures. The 44.44 TFLOPS FP32 output is more than 21 times the NVIDIA module’s output, and the memory capacity is 12 times larger. For workloads that require pixel output, the Intel GPU provides none, as its pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s and it has no display outputs. The NVIDIA GPU provides 16.32 GPixel/s and supports portable device dependent display outputs. Therefore, any application needing graphics output or rasterization must select the NVIDIA part. Any application needing massive memory bandwidth or extreme compute density must select the Intel part.

The launch MSRP for the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super is 249 USD, a figure recorded in the database, but the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has no launch MSRP listed. The production status for both is Active, and both were released within the database’s recorded timeline: the Intel part on 2023-01-09 and the NVIDIA part on 2024-12-16. The successor field for the Intel part is listed as H3C Graphics, while the NVIDIA part has no successor.

The database’s percentile ranking places both at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, but this is a neutral midpoint due to the lack of benchmark scores, not a statement of equivalence. The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Intel accelerator is for compute-heavy data center tasks, and the NVIDIA module is for compact, low-power, display-capable systems. There is no overlap in their recorded capabilities, so the selection depends entirely on whether the workload needs pixel output and low power, or maximum compute and memory throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance according to the database?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has 44.44 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super has 2.089 TFLOPS FP32. The Intel part is approximately 21.3 times faster in FP32 based on the recorded figures.

Q: Does the Intel GPU support display outputs?

A: No. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 lists no display outputs and has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super lists display outputs as portable device dependent and has a pixel rate of 16.32 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two accelerators?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has 96 GB of HBM2e memory with a 8192-bit bus and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super has 8 GB of LPDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the thermal design power values for each device?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has a TDP of 450 W and a suggested PSU of 850 W. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super has a TDP of 25 W and has no suggested PSU listed in the database.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 has 14,336 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, and 0 raster output units. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super has 1,024 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 lists 112 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super does not list a ray tracing core count, but it has 32 tensor cores. The Intel part’s ray tracing cores are present in the recorded data, while the NVIDIA part’s ray tracing support is not specified.

Specification Differences

The database records several direct specification differences between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 and the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super.

Process node: the Intel chip (Ponte Vecchio) is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA chip (GA10B) is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung.

Transistors: the Intel part lists 100,000 million transistors, the NVIDIA part lists unknown transistor count.

Die size: the Intel die is 1280 mm², the NVIDIA die is 200 mm².

Transistor density: the Intel part has 78.1M transistors per mm², the NVIDIA part has no recorded density.

Clock speeds: the Intel GPU has a base clock of 750 MHz and a boost clock of 1550 MHz, with memory at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA GPU has no base or boost clock recorded, and memory at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective).

Memory type: Intel uses HBM2e, NVIDIA uses LPDDR5.

Memory bus width: Intel has 8192 bit, NVIDIA has 128 bit.

Memory size: Intel has 96 GB, NVIDIA has 8 GB.

Memory bandwidth: Intel has 2.46 TB/s, NVIDIA has 102.4 GB/s.

Shading units: Intel has 14,336, NVIDIA has 1,024.

Texture mapping units: Intel has 896, NVIDIA has 32.

Raster output units: Intel has 0, NVIDIA has 16.

Ray tracing cores: Intel has 112, NVIDIA has none listed.

Tensor cores: Intel has none listed, NVIDIA has 32.

Pixel rate: Intel has 0 MPixel/s, NVIDIA has 16.32 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: Intel has 1,388.8 GTexel/s, NVIDIA has 32.64 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput: Intel has 44.44 TFLOPS, NVIDIA has 2.089 TFLOPS.

FP16 throughput: Intel has 44.44 TFLOPS (1:1), NVIDIA has 4.178 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: Intel has 450 W, NVIDIA has 25 W.

Slot width: Intel is an OAM Module, NVIDIA is an IGP.

Bus interface: Intel uses PCIe 5.0 x16, NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x4.

Display outputs: Intel has no outputs, NVIDIA has portable device dependent outputs.

DirectX support: Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1), NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

OpenGL support: both list 4.6.

Vulkan support: Intel lists null, NVIDIA lists 1.4.

Dimensions: Intel has no length or height recorded, NVIDIA has length 70 mm (2.8 inches) and height 45 mm (1.8 inches).

Release date: Intel released on 2023-01-09, NVIDIA released on 2024-12-16.

Launch MSRP: Intel has none listed, NVIDIA has 249 USD.

Suggested PSU: Intel lists 850 W, NVIDIA lists none.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1350 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip under the Generation 12.5 architecture, with a generation label of Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio). The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super uses the GA10B chip under the Ampere architecture, with a generation label of Tegra (Ampere). These are distinct architecture families: Intel’s Generation 12.5 is a data center focused design, while NVIDIA’s Ampere for Tegra is an embedded and edge computing design.

The process nodes differ, with Intel at 10 nm and NVIDIA at 8 nm, and the foundries differ accordingly: Intel for the Ponte Vecchio, Samsung for the GA10B. The transistor count is only recorded for the Intel part, at 100,000 million, and the die size is 1280 mm² versus 200 mm² for the NVIDIA chip. The Intel design uses a massive die with a high transistor density of 78.1M per mm², while the NVIDIA die is much smaller and its density is not recorded.

The cache and core organization differ significantly. The Intel GPU has 14,336 shading units, 896 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 112 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA GPU has 1,024 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 32 tensor cores, with no ray tracing cores listed. This indicates that the Intel architecture emphasizes a very wide shading and texture pipeline with dedicated ray tracing hardware, while the NVIDIA architecture includes tensor cores for AI workloads and a conventional raster pipeline with ROPs.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different: Intel uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus and 2.46 TB/s bandwidth, NVIDIA uses LPDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel memory clock is 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), the NVIDIA memory clock is 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective).

The feature sets differ in API support. Intel lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan version recorded. NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part supports a higher DirectX feature level and explicitly supports Vulkan, while the Intel part does not record Vulkan support.

The form factors diverge: Intel is an OAM Module with no display outputs and a 450 W TDP, NVIDIA is an IGP with portable device dependent display outputs and a 25 W TDP. The Intel part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The Intel suggested PSU is 850 W, the NVIDIA has none.

The production status for both is Active, and both are current products in the database. The Intel architecture targets rack-scale data center compute with high memory bandwidth and ray tracing, while the NVIDIA architecture targets compact, low-power systems with tensor cores, pixel output, and broad API support including Vulkan.