NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

NVIDIA offers two distinctly different Ampere-based products: the Jetson Orin Nano Super, an embedded system-on-module, and the RTX A1000, a workstation graphics card. Both are active products built on an 8 nm Samsung process with a 200 mm² die, but they target entirely different deployment scenarios. The data shows a clear split between raw compute capability and power-constrained embedded operation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX A1000 is the only one of the two with recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its results establish a substantial performance lead over the Jetson Orin Nano Super, which has no recorded benchmarks and therefore no direct competitive scores. The A1000 achieves 969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 52,078 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 49,574 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Jetson Orin Nano Super's average benchmark score is listed as 0, meaning no comparable measurement exists in the database.

The compute gap is evident from the raw specifications. The RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 3.2 times the Jetson Orin Nano Super's 2.089 TFLOPS. In FP16, the difference is even more pronounced: the A1000 offers 6.737 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Orin Nano Super provides 4.178 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The 2:1 ratio indicates the Jetson's FP16 throughput is achieved via packed operations, whereas the A1000 sustains full-rate FP16.

The memory subsystem reinforces this gap. Both cards have 8 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the RTX A1000 uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Jetson Orin Nano Super uses LPDDR5 at 6.4 Gbps effective, producing 102.4 GB/s. That is a 1.875 times bandwidth advantage for the A1000, which directly affects texture-heavy and data-intensive workloads.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The RTX A1000 outputs 46.78 GPixel/s and 105.3 GTexel/s, while the Jetson Orin Nano Super manages 16.32 GPixel/s and 32.64 GTexel/s. The A1000 is 2.9 times faster in pixel fill and 3.2 times faster in texture fill. These figures reflect the A1000's larger execution resources: 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 1,024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the Jetson.

The RTX A1000 also carries more specialized hardware. It has 72 tensor cores and 18 RT cores, whereas the Jetson Orin Nano Super has 32 tensor cores and no listed RT cores. The A1000's tensor core count is 2.25 times higher, and the presence of RT cores enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the Jetson cannot perform.

The A1000's recorded benchmark scores place it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 34,207. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 34,154 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT scores 34,133 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA TITAN V scores 34,355 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 33,997 (0.6% behind). This places the A1000 in a narrow competitive band where the differences between adjacent cards are negligible. The Jetson Orin Nano Super sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, a mid-pack position, but with no benchmark scores its percentile is based on specification inference rather than measured performance.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. For applications requiring maximum throughput per watt in a compact embedded form factor, the Jetson Orin Nano Super is the appropriate choice. It operates at 25 W TDP and integrates into portable devices, with dimensions of 70 mm by 45 mm. Its IGP slot width means no expansion slot is needed. The launch MSRP is 249 USD.

For workstation graphics, display output, and general compute tasks that benefit from higher raw performance, the RTX A1000 is the stronger option. It delivers 3.2 times the FP32 throughput, 1.875 times the memory bandwidth, and 2.9 times the pixel fill rate. It also supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for multi-display professional environments. Its 50 W TDP is double the Jetson's, but still modest for a single-slot card measuring 163 mm by 69 mm.

The A1000's benchmark scores confirm its viability as a workstation GPU. The 3DMark Steel Nomad result of 969, Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,078, and Geekbench Vulkan score of 49,574 all indicate consistent performance across different API workloads. The Jetson Orin Nano Super has no such measurements, so its performance profile cannot be verified against the same tests.

Users who need ray tracing hardware must choose the RTX A1000, as it is the only one with 18 RT cores. Users who need the lowest possible power draw in a fanless embedded system should choose the Jetson Orin Nano Super. The Jetson's 25 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs point to robotics, edge AI, and mobile deployments, while the A1000's workstation designation and display connectivity point to desktop workstations and professional visualization.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS, which is 3.2 times the 2.089 TFLOPS of the Jetson Orin Nano Super.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB, but the RTX A1000 uses GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Jetson Orin Nano Super uses LPDDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX A1000, which has 18 RT cores. The Jetson Orin Nano Super has no listed RT cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Jetson Orin Nano Super has a 25 W TDP, while the RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, exactly double.

Q: How does the RTX A1000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 34,207 is 0.2% ahead of the RTX A2000 12 GB and RX 560 XT, 0.4% behind the TITAN V, and 0.6% ahead of the RX 480.

Q: Which GPU is smaller?

A: The Jetson Orin Nano Super measures 70 mm by 45 mm and is an IGP, while the RTX A1000 measures 163 mm by 69 mm and is a single-slot card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable specification except memory capacity, bus width, process node, and die size. Both use 8 nm Samsung fabrication and a 200 mm² die. Both have 8 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus.

The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units versus 1,024 on the Jetson Orin Nano Super, a 2.25 times advantage. TMUs number 72 versus 32, and ROPs number 32 versus 16. The A1000 has 72 tensor cores and 18 RT cores, while the Jetson has 32 tensor cores and no RT cores.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Jetson Orin Nano Super has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The RTX A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost clock of 1,462 MHz, with a memory clock of 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

The A1000's pixel rate is 46.78 GPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 105.3 GTexel/s versus 32.64 GTexel/s. FP32 is 6.737 TFLOPS versus 2.089 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.737 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio versus 4.178 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Jetson Orin Nano Super has a 25 W TDP, is an IGP, and has no power connectors or suggested PSU. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The A1000 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Jetson uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the Jetson, while the A1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Jetson was released on 2024-12-16, and the A1000 on 2024-04-15.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the Ampere architecture, but they are built on different chips. The Jetson Orin Nano Super uses the GA10B chip, part of the Tegra (Ampere) generation. The RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. Both are fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process with a 200 mm² die.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The RTX A1000 lists 8,700 million transistors with a density of 43.5M per mm². The Jetson Orin Nano Super's transistor count is unknown, but its die size is identical at 200 mm².

The Jetson Orin Nano Super has 1,024 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 32 tensor cores. It has no RT cores. Its FP16 throughput is achieved at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes half the rate of FP32 through packed math. The RTX A1000 has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 72 tensor cores, and 18 RT cores. Its FP16 runs at a 1:1 ratio, matching FP32 throughput.

Memory architecture also differs. The Jetson uses LPDDR5, a low-power memory type suited to embedded systems, while the A1000 uses GDDR6, a high-bandwidth graphics memory. Both are 8 GB on a 128-bit bus, but the A1000's 12 Gbps effective speed produces 192.0 GB/s versus the Jetson's 102.4 GB/s from 6.4 Gbps effective.

API support is identical: both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A1000 has a predecessor of Quadro Turing and a successor of Workstation Ada, while the Jetson Orin Nano Super has no listed predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 wins in every measured performance category. Its FP32 throughput of 6.737 TFLOPS is 3.2 times higher, its memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s is 1.875 times higher, its pixel rate of 46.78 GPixel/s is 2.9 times higher, and its texture rate of 105.3 GTexel/s is 3.2 times higher. It has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, tensor cores, and the only RT cores between the two. Its benchmark scores confirm real-world capability in 3DMark and Geekbench workloads, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs.

The Jetson Orin Nano Super wins in power efficiency and physical size. Its 25 W TDP is half the A1000's 50 W TDP. Its 70 mm by 45 mm dimensions make it dramatically smaller than the A1000's 163 mm by 69 mm card. It is an IGP, requiring no slot, and its display outputs are portable-device-dependent, making it suitable for embedded systems where a discrete card cannot fit. Its launch MSRP of 249 USD positions it as a low-cost entry point, though the A1000 has no launch MSRP listed.

For workstation use cases involving multiple displays, ray tracing, or high-bandwidth compute, the RTX A1000 is the only option with the required hardware. Its four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor setups. Its RT cores enable hardware ray tracing. Its 72 tensor cores provide 2.25 times the AI acceleration hardware of the Jetson.

For mobile robotics, edge inference, and power-constrained deployments, the Jetson Orin Nano Super is the appropriate choice. Its lower TDP, compact footprint, and embedded form factor align with systems that cannot accommodate a discrete graphics card. The A1000's 250 W suggested PSU also implies a larger system power budget, whereas the Jetson's 25 W TDP imposes minimal requirements.

The benchmark data shows no overlap in their competitive zones. The A1000 competes with the RTX A2000 12 GB, RX 560 XT, TITAN V, and RX 480, all within 0.6% of its average score. The Jetson Orin Nano Super has no benchmark rivals in the database. Its 50th percentile placement suggests mid-range capability, but without measurements, its actual performance remains unverified. The recorded data therefore supports the A1000 for performance-critical applications and the Jetson for form-factor-critical applications.