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.
-
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
-
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y
