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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no benchmark scores for either the Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem or the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. The wins counter for each product is also zero. Consequently, no direct performance comparisons can be drawn from measured workloads. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, placing each at the median of the database distribution, but this value reflects the absence of recorded data rather than an equivalence in actual capability.

Without benchmark results, the only quantitative performance indicators available are the theoretical peak rates derived from the specification sheets. In FP32 compute, the Intel part reaches 52.43 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part reaches 2.089 TFLOPS. That places the Intel subsystem at roughly 25 times the FP32 throughput of the Jetson Orin Nano Super, a gap that correlates with the massive difference in shading units, 16384 versus 1024. For FP16, the Intel unit again shows 52.43 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning no throughput advantage from reduced precision. The NVIDIA unit shows 4.178 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate when operating on FP16 data. Even with that doubling, the Intel part still delivers more than 12 times the FP16 throughput of the NVIDIA part.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same trend. The Intel subsystem reports a texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s, compared to 32.64 GTexel/s for the Jetson Orin Nano Super. The pixel rate comparison is more nuanced: the Jetson part has a pixel rate of 16.32 GPixel/s, while the Intel part reports 0 MPixel/s because it lacks any display outputs or raster operation units. That is a structural difference, not a performance deficiency, since the Intel product is a compute-oriented accelerator with no ROPS count listed.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different design philosophies and process nodes. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem uses the Ponte Vecchio chip, built on Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 1280 mm² with 100,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super uses the GA10B chip, based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. Its die size is 200 mm², and the transistor count is listed as unknown.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Intel subsystem carries 128 GB of HBM2e memory across an 8192-bit bus, producing a bandwidth of 3.21 TB/s. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The memory clock for the Intel part is 1565 MHz, stated as 3.1 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA part runs at 800 MHz, stated as 6.4 Gbps effective. The effective data rates are higher on the NVIDIA memory due to the LPDDR5 standard, but the bus width and capacity differential dominate the bandwidth comparison.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Intel part has 16384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, zero raster operation units, and 128 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 1024 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, 16 raster operation units, and 32 tensor cores. The Intel part does not list tensor cores, while the NVIDIA part does. The Intel part includes ray tracing hardware, the NVIDIA part does not list any. The Intel architecture is Generation 12.5, the NVIDIA architecture is Ampere. The Intel part belongs to the Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) generation, the NVIDIA part to the Tegra (Ampere) generation.

Power and physical form factor also differ. The Intel subsystem has a thermal design power of 2400 W, requires a 2800 W suggested power supply, uses a dual-slot form factor, and takes a single 16-pin power connector. It has no display outputs. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super has a thermal design power of 25 W, uses an integrated graphics processor form factor with no power connector listed, and no suggested PSU. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The Intel part measures 267 mm in length, the NVIDIA part measures 70 mm in length and 45 mm in height.

The bus interface differs as well: the Intel part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x4. API support shows the Intel part with DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, with Vulkan not listed. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Production status is active for both. The Intel part was released on 2023-01-09, the NVIDIA part on 2024-12-16. The Intel part has a successor listed as H3C Graphics, the NVIDIA part has no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which product has more FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem delivers 52.43 TFLOPS in FP32, while the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super delivers 2.089 TFLOPS. The Intel part is approximately 25 times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Intel part has 128 GB of HBM2e memory with a bandwidth of 3.21 TB/s. The NVIDIA part has 8 GB of LPDDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Intel bandwidth is about 31 times higher.

Q: Does the NVIDIA part support ray tracing?

A: No ray tracing cores are listed for the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem includes 128 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each?

A: The Intel part has a TDP of 2400 W. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 25 W, which is 96 times lower.

Q: Which product has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super lists 32 tensor cores. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem does not list any tensor cores in its specification.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem was released on 2023-01-09. The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super was released on 2024-12-16, about 23 months later.

The Verdict

The data shows two products with no overlapping use cases. The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem is a high-power, high-throughput accelerator designed for dense compute environments. Its 2400 W TDP, 128 GB HBM2e memory, 8192-bit bus, and 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in the category of large-scale data center compute. The 267 mm dual-slot form factor and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface reinforce that positioning. It has no display outputs and no raster operation units, confirming a pure compute role.

The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super is a low-power embedded system-on-chip. Its 25 W TDP, 8 GB LPDDR5 memory, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth target edge inference and portable applications. The 70 mm by 45 mm physical footprint, integrated graphics processor form factor, and portable device dependent display outputs indicate a compact deployment scenario. The 32 tensor cores provide dedicated AI acceleration, and the 2:1 FP16 ratio doubles throughput for mixed-precision workloads.

Benchmark results are absent for both entries, so the verdict rests on architectural and specification comparisons. The Intel part wins decisively on raw compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture rate, and ray tracing capability. The NVIDIA part wins on power efficiency, pixel rate, tensor core availability, Vulkan support, and physical size. Neither product can substitute for the other. The Intel part is for rack-mounted compute nodes with substantial power delivery. The NVIDIA part is for embedded devices with limited power budgets.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in every major specification category. Process node: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 8 nm. Foundry: Intel uses Intel, NVIDIA uses Samsung. Die size: Intel is 1280 mm², NVIDIA is 200 mm². Transistors: Intel lists 100,000 million, NVIDIA lists unknown. Memory size: 128 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: HBM2e versus LPDDR5. Memory bus width: 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Memory bandwidth: 3.21 TB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. Shading units: 16384 versus 1024. Texture mapping units: 1024 versus 32. Raster operation units: 0 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: 128 versus not listed. Tensor cores: not listed versus 32. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 1,638.4 GTexel/s versus 32.64 GTexel/s. FP32: 52.43 TFLOPS versus 2.089 TFLOPS. FP16: 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 4.178 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 2400 W versus 25 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connector: 1x 16-pin versus none listed. Suggested PSU: 2800 W versus none listed. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs: no outputs versus portable device dependent. DirectX: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan: not listed versus 1.4. Length: 267 mm versus 70 mm. Height: not listed versus 45 mm. Release date: 2023-01-09 versus 2024-12-16. Successor: H3C Graphics versus none listed. Launch MSRP: none listed for Intel, 249 USD for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max Subsystem wins on compute-intensive workloads that require maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, large memory capacity, and extreme memory bandwidth. The 128 GB HBM2e pool with 3.21 TB/s bandwidth suits large model inference or scientific simulation. The 128 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced rendering tasks. The 1,638.4 GTexel/s texture rate supports heavy texturing workloads. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface allows high-speed host communication. The 2400 W TDP indicates a stationary installation with dedicated cooling and power infrastructure.

The NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super wins on power-constrained edge deployments, portable devices, and applications requiring tensor core acceleration. The 25 W TDP allows operation from compact power sources. The 32 tensor cores enable AI inferencing tasks that benefit from dedicated matrix math. The 2:1 FP16 ratio effectively doubles throughput for half-precision workloads. The 16.32 GPixel/s pixel rate supports display output, and the portable device dependent display outputs allow integration into small form factor products. The 70 mm by 45 mm dimensions fit into embedded enclosures. The Vulkan 1.4 API support provides modern graphics and compute interfaces. The 8 GB LPDDR5 memory, while small compared to the Intel part, is adequate for many embedded inference models. The 249 USD launch MSRP positions it for low-cost deployments. The PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is sufficient for its bandwidth needs. The absence of a power connector and suggested PSU reflects its self-contained power design.