Open Navigation · maintainers of Nav2
The whole robot benchmark, fully loaded.
An independently managed, vendor-agnostic benchmark that compares robotics compute platforms using realistically complex, data intensive, representative mobile robotics applications. A full autonomy stack in a deployment scale environment and an edge AI workload run at the same time, contending for the same CPU, power, and accelerators.
- Independently managed.Run by Open Navigation LLC, maintainers of Nav2.
- Vendor-agnostic.No vendor controls the methodology or the numbers.
- Everything is public.Pipeline, raw logs, and analysis code, reproducible on your hardware.
The same run, from inside
The workload as the robot sees it
We use Nav2 to autonomously navigate the forklift through the warehouse with its advanced, built-in planning, control, behavior modeling, and perception, while it processes multiple 3D lidars, 2D safety lidars, RGBD cameras, and internal sensors. Gemma 4.0 runs alongside it on the same GPU for situational awareness.
Each of these is a real consumer of CPU, memory bandwidth, and accelerated compute on the platform under test. They interact when composed into a full system which this benchmark captures in full.
Click either video to watch it at full length.
Explore the benchmark
Every platform ran the same missions with the same sensor and AI load. See the platforms, our methodology, and the results.
Methodology
The workload, the sensor suite, the autonomy and AI stacks, how every metric is defined, and the limitations of what this measures.
Read the methodologyPlatforms
Vendor specifications, the configuration each platform was actually tested at, the measured cost of its sensor drivers, and every result at a glance.
Compare platformsResults
Application performance first, then CPU, headroom, GPU, memory, power and thermal. Every chart carries the run it was measured from and a downloadable data table.
See the resultsWhy this benchmark exists
Many benchmarks exist from both hardware vendors and community members, but nearly all focus on evaluating a particular component or algorithm in isolation. Often times, multiple of these algorithms need to be run together which may interact negatively when composed into a full system due to sharing of limited CPU/power or conflicts accessing accelerated computing resources (GPU, NPU, FPGA, etc).
This project fills the gap with a reproducible, independent benchmark for comparing compute solutions for robotics or physical AI applications in all of their complexity. A platform that wins every microbenchmark can still fail to hold a 30 Hz control loop once planning, perception, sensor drivers, and a VLM are all running simultaneously on it at once. That interaction and potential failure mode is what this benchmark measures and seeks to expose.
What is running
Nav2 autonomously navigates a forklift material handling robot within a 200,000 sqft (18,600 m²) industrial warehouse. It moves pallets from shipping/receiving to shelving units while processing multiple 3D lidars, 2D safety lidars, RGBD cameras, and internal sensors. This workload is representative of dozens of companies and tens of thousands of robots deployed today in production environments.
Alongside it, Gemma 4.0, a popular VLM, exercises the platform's GPU. It is integrated into the navigation behavior tree for scene understanding, so its answers actually affect the robot's decisions.
How it is measured
An external computer runs the simulation; the platform under test runs everything else for compute platform HIL, including simulated driver loads.
Platforms evaluated
Three platforms in this edition. The benchmark is built to grow. See adding a platform.
| Feature | X100 / Strix Halo | Jetson Thor | Jetson AGX Orin |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | 16x Zen 5 (32T) @ 5.1 GHz | 14x Arm Neoverse V3AE @ 2.6 GHz | 12x Arm Cortex-A78AE @ 2.2 GHz |
| GPU architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Blackwell | Ampere |
| NPU / DLA | XDNA 2 (50 TOPS) | None | 2x NVDLA 2.0 |
| RAM | Up to 128 GB LPDDR5X | 128 GB LPDDR5X | 64 GB LPDDR5 |
| Memory bandwidth | 256 GB/s | 273 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |
| Power (TDP) | 45-120 W | 40-130 W | 15-60 W |
Platform balance
Six dimensions, each min-max normalized against the strongest platform in this category.
Data table (3 rows)
| Platform | CPU Headroom | CPU Capability | GPU Capability | Memory Capability | Memory Headroom | Clock Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD Strix Halo | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| NVIDIA Jetson Thor | 0.61 | 0.33 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.54 | 0.75 |
| NVIDIA Jetson Orin | 0.08 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 0.32 | 0.83 |
Source: max_power/amd_strix_halo, max_power/jetson_thor, max_power/jetson_orin · CSV CSV CSV
The finding, per platform
X100 / Strix Halo
- Mean CPU
- 18.1%
- Missions
- 10
- Misses/s
- 0.46
AMD's flagship targeting AI and robotics edge workloads. Strix Halo represents an x86-based alternative to the Jetson ecosystem, offering strong CPU performance with unified memory for LLM/VLM workloads.
Full profileJetson Thor
- Mean CPU
- 49.8%
- Missions
- 10
- Misses/s
- 1.58
NVIDIA's next-generation embedded AI module built on the Blackwell GPU architecture. Thor is designed as the next platform for physical AI and advanced robotics applications and enables edge AI such as LLM/VLM and foundation models.
Full profileJetson AGX Orin
- Mean CPU
- 93.6%
- Missions
- 3
- Misses/s
- 5.65
NVIDIA's established embedded AI platform widely adopted in robotics which require edge AI such as detection, segmentation, and reinforcement learning. The Orin is the current workhorse of many production robotics deployments.
Full profileIn short
Strix Halo and Thor are very close in GPU and memory performance, both are production-capable for modern robotics and physical AI workloads. Strix Halo carries roughly 2.7x more CPU headroom than Thor, leaving about 82% of the CPU available to application developers, great where large CPU workloads are required. The Orin AGX is significantly behind: unable to process the navigation and AI workload in real time, it saturated its GPU and key CPU cores.
Add a platform to the benchmark
This comparison covers some of the main robotics compute platforms from major suppliers. It is not a complete map of the robotics compute landscape and it is meant to grow.
Hardware vendors
If you build compute modules for robotics, Open Navigation can bring your platform up, profile it, and include it in this benchmark results reports. Contact us for more information and support.
Run it yourself
The pipeline is public, designed to be extended, and ran independently. Run it yourself with our instructions with our robotics workload or your own on any platform easily.
Need ROS 2 or Nav2 help?
Open Navigation maintains Nav2 and provides commercial engineering support: autonomy integration, performance work, and hardware platform bring-up and evaluation.
