Chip comparison
NVIDIA DRIVE Thor vs NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor
Side-by-side specs
Straight from each vendor's datasheet. Winner in bold: higher throughput, memory, or transistor count; lower power draw or price. Sparse (2:4) throughput roughly doubles the FP8/INT8 numbers shown.
| Field | NVIDIA DRIVE Thor | NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor |
|---|---|---|
| Process node | TSMC 4NP | TSMC 4NP |
| TDP | 130 W | 130 W |
| Memory | 128 GB LPDDR5X | 128 GB LPDDR5X |
| Memory bandwidth | — | 273 GB/s |
| FP8 (dense) | 2,000 TFLOPS | 2,070 TFLOPS |
| INT8 (dense) | 2,000 TOPS | 2,070 TOPS |
| Form factor | Auto-board | Module (AGX Thor) |
| Announced | 2022-09-20 | 2024-03-18 |
| Released | 2025-06-01 | 2025-08-01 |
Robots running NVIDIA DRIVE Thor
Data centers with NVIDIA DRIVE Thor
No data centers publicly running it yet.
Data centers with NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor
No data centers publicly running it yet.
Common questions
NVIDIA DRIVE Thor vs NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor: which is faster for training?
NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor has 1.03x the dense FP8 throughput of the other (NVIDIA DRIVE Thor: 2,000 TFLOPS; NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor: 2,070 TFLOPS). Real-world training speed also depends on memory bandwidth, interconnect, and software stack: see the spec diff for those inputs.
NVIDIA DRIVE Thor vs NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor: which has more memory?
NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor carries more HBM (NVIDIA DRIVE Thor: 128 GB LPDDR5X; NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor: 128 GB LPDDR5X). Memory capacity sets the largest model that fits on one chip without partitioning; memory bandwidth sets inference throughput.
NVIDIA DRIVE Thor vs NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor: which is more power-efficient?
Dense FP8 TFLOPS per watt: NVIDIA DRIVE Thor 15.38 (2,000 ÷ 130 W); NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor 15.92 (2,070 ÷ 130 W). NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor wins at the die level; system-level efficiency also depends on cooling and interconnect.
See also: every chip comparison · NVIDIA DRIVE Thor full page · NVIDIA Jetson AGX Thor full page.