News
NVIDIA says Tesla raised the bar for self-driving tech, car makers must deliver
NVIDIA, a prominent and highly successful leader in computer chip design, says that Tesla has raised the bar in autonomous driving software, and other car makers will have to deliver similar performance if they want to compete in the long-term future of the auto industry, according to a recent NVIDIA company blog.
“It’s financially insane to buy anything other than a Tesla,” CEO Elon Musk stated during the company’s Autonomy Day event. He then compared the purchase of any other car as equivalent to buying a horse for one’s transportation purposes. NVIDIA, for its part, agrees with Musk and Tesla’s sentiments about the future of self-driving and the need for powerful computers to push its progress.
“Self-driving cars—which are key to new levels of safety, efficiency, and convenience—are the future of the industry. And they require massive amounts of computing performance… This is the way forward. Every other automaker will need to deliver this level of performance,” the chip maker wrote.
The type of autonomous driving technology Tesla is pushing is predicted to be the inevitable standard, and the company’s lead in the arena will likely increase even further as more of their vehicles take to the road. “By end of this quarter, about half a million Teslas will have full self-driving hardware (pending computer swap) & we will make another half million FSD cars by mid next year,” Musk tweeted, emphasizing this point and echoing what he’d explained the day prior.
Exactly. By end of this quarter, about half a million Teslas will have full self-driving hardware (pending computer swap) & we will make another half million FSD cars by mid next year.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 23, 2019
Tesla’s recent Autonomy Day presentation drew comparisons between the all-electric car maker’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) computer chip and those produced by NVIDIA, the only computer processing unit maker delivering performance in line with Tesla’s. NVIDIA currently has two self-driving chips in the works: the Xavier SoC (system on a chip) for assisted driving AutoPilot features, and the DRIVE AGX Pegasus computer for full self-driving. The comparisons in Tesla’s presentation were directed at the Xavier in a single-chip configuration.
The technical performance specifications required to run powerful artificial intelligence (AI) neural networks (NN) for autonomous driving require operations performed per second to be measured in the trillions – abbreviated as TOPS (tera operations per second). Tesla’s FSD computer chip can perform at a rate of 72 TOPS (x2 chips in the computer for 144 TOPS total), and the Xavier does 30 TOPS (mistakenly claimed to be 21 TOPS at Tesla’s event, per NVIDIA’s blog).
NVIDIA also expressed in the blog piece its opinion that the match between FSD and Xavier wasn’t quite an apples-to-apples comparison, given the purposes of the two chips. The chip designer prefers its DRIVE AGX Pegasus for the line-up, a computer intended for fully autonomous driving and capable of 320 TOPS. Tesla is assumingly aware of this product and obviously acknowledges the high level of technology developed by NVIDIA given that Hardware 2.5, the computer currently running Tesla’s Autopilot features, was made by the company.
A Tesla with driver features “deleted” under the Tesla Network. | Image: Tesla
There are additional specifications such as power consumption that further differentiate FSD from NVIDIA’s products with a more similar purpose to Tesla’s latest computer. Thus, a different product match may not have mattered towards the overall point being made in the presentation. Either way, a more important distinction between the two companies is the current status of their technologies.
Tesla’s chip was crowned as “objectively the best in the world” by Musk, and this looks to be true, given the fact that all Tesla Model S, 3, and X vehicles being produced now have the hardware installed and will add to the already accruing real world self-driving data the company’s cars provide. NVIDIA has partnered with other car manufacturers to develop its products, but they are not incorporated in production vehicles the way Tesla’s FSD has been yet.
The performance Tesla has achieved in its FSD computer is impressive, and that was and continues to be the point. “[Autonomy] is basically our entire expense structure,” Musk told an investor inquiring about where the California-based company was incurring the most cost. Tesla is hedging its fiscal future on the success of autonomous driving in the marketplace, and the company is doing so with bullish energy driven by its famous top executive.
Musk expects Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software to be complete by the end of this year and fully operational by the second quarter of next year.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
