Jetson Orin Nano vs Orin NX Power Consumption (2026)
Updated April 2026
Side-by-side power consumption comparison between Jetson Orin Nano and Orin NX across idle, inference, and full load scenarios. Measured data, performance-per-watt analysis, and a decision matrix for choosing the right platform based on your power budget and camera count.
Quick Answer
Orin Nano draws 5–28W (15W default); Orin NX draws 7–50W (25W default). The Nano is more power-efficient per watt. The NX handles more cameras and heavier models.
- Choose Nano for ≤8 cameras at 1080p with tight power budgets, fanless enclosures, or battery operation
- Choose NX for 8–16 cameras, heavy models (YOLO11m/l), or deployments where headroom matters more than power efficiency
For a deeper look at Orin Nano power across all modes, see the Jetson Orin Nano Power Consumption guide.
All measurements taken on JetPack 6.2 using inline USB-C power monitor. Workloads: YOLO11 inference via TensorRT INT8, batch size 1, 1080p input. Sustained power draw values.
Planning Takeaway
The Orin Nano delivers better streams-per-watt for lightweight workloads. The Orin NX delivers more absolute streams but at a higher power floor. The crossover point is around 6–8 cameras: below that, Nano wins on efficiency; above that, NX wins on feasibility.
Who This Page Is For
- Choosing between Orin Nano and Orin NX based on power budget
- Sizing PoE, battery, or PSU for multi-camera Jetson deployments
- Evaluating whether the NX's higher power draw is justified for your workload
- Planning thermal design for fanless or semi-enclosed installations
Platform Specs Comparison
Before comparing power, it helps to understand what each platform brings architecturally. Both are based on the NVIDIA Orin SoC family and share the same Ampere GPU architecture, JetPack software stack, and TensorRT optimization pipeline. The differences are in how much of the SoC is enabled.
| Spec | Orin Nano | Orin NX 16GB |
|---|---|---|
| INT8 TOPS | 67 | 157 |
| GPU Cores | 1024 CUDA | 1024 CUDA + 32 Tensor |
| Memory | 8GB LPDDR5 | 16GB LPDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 68 GB/s | 102 GB/s |
| Default TDP | 15W | 25W |
| Power Range | 5–28W | 7–50W |
| Max 1080p Streams | ~6 | ~12 |
| Module Cost | ~$249 | ~$599 |
The NX has 2.3× the INT8 compute throughput, double the memory, and 50% more memory bandwidth. These advantages come at the cost of a higher power floor (7W idle vs 5W) and a significantly higher peak power ceiling (50W vs 28W). The NX also costs roughly 2.4× more at the module level.
→ Full Orin Nano vs Orin NX comparison (compute, memory, ecosystem) →
Power Consumption by Scenario
The following table shows measured power draw across five representative workload scenarios. Both platforms were tested on JetPack 6.2 at their default power modes (Nano: 15W, NX: 25W) with TensorRT INT8 inference and batch size 1.
| Scenario | Orin Nano | Orin NX | NX Overhead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idle (no inference) | 4.5–5.5W | 7–10W | +2.5–4.5W |
| Light inference (1–2 cameras, small model) | 6–8W | 10–14W | +4–6W |
| Medium inference (3–6 cameras, YOLO11n INT8) | 8–12W | 14–20W | +6–8W |
| Heavy inference (6–8 cameras, YOLO11s/m INT8) | 13–16W | 20–30W | +7–14W |
| MAXN full load (all cores, max clocks) | 20–28W | 35–50W | +15–22W |
The NX consistently draws 1.5–2× the power of the Nano across all scenarios. The idle gap is particularly significant for always-on deployments: 7–10W vs 4.5–5.5W means the NX burns 50–80% more power just sitting there waiting for work. Over a year of 24/7 operation, that idle delta alone translates to ~20–40 kWh of additional energy consumption per device.
The heavy inference and MAXN rows show where the NX's higher power ceiling enables workloads that the Nano physically cannot sustain. At 13–16W, the Nano is near its thermal limit; the NX at 20–30W is operating at roughly 60–80% of its power envelope, with headroom for burst loads or additional cameras.
→ Detailed Orin Nano power profiles across all nvpmodel modes →
Performance Per Watt Analysis
Raw power numbers do not tell the full story. What matters for deployment economics is how many useful inference streams you get per watt consumed. The table below normalizes throughput against measured power draw for both platforms at their default power modes.
| Metric | Orin Nano (15W) | Orin NX (25W) |
|---|---|---|
| Max 1080p streams (YOLO11n INT8, 15fps) | ~6 | ~12 |
| Typical power at max streams | ~14W | ~28W |
| Streams per watt | ~0.43 streams/W | ~0.43 streams/W |
| TOPS per watt (at default TDP) | 4.5 TOPS/W | 6.3 TOPS/W |
| Cost per stream (module only) | ~$42/stream | ~$50/stream |
Both platforms deliver similar streams-per-watt efficiency at their default power modes—roughly 0.43 streams per watt. The NX has a slight edge in raw TOPS-per-watt (6.3 vs 4.5) because its larger GPU can achieve higher utilization, but this advantage disappears when you account for the higher idle power floor and the fact that most deployments do not saturate the GPU continuously.
The Nano wins on cost-per-stream ($42 vs $50) because it costs less than half the NX while delivering roughly half the streams. This makes it the better value when you need fewer than 6 cameras—and the better choice when you can deploy two Nano nodes instead of one NX for redundancy.
The NX wins on absolute throughput density. One NX replaces two Nanos while requiring less total system power (28W vs 2×14W = 28W for the modules alone, but one NX needs only one carrier board, one NVMe, and one enclosure).
When the Orin Nano Wins
The Nano is the right choice when power efficiency is the primary constraint. Specific scenarios where the Nano delivers a clear advantage:
- Low camera count (1–6 cameras at 1080p): The Nano handles this comfortably at 8–14W. Using the NX for the same workload wastes 6–14W on idle overhead with no throughput benefit.
- Tight power budget (≤15W system): If the total system power—module plus peripherals—must stay under 15W, the NX cannot operate at all. The Nano's 15W TDP default fits this constraint with room for a camera or two on USB.
- Fanless enclosures: Sustained 10–12W is manageable with a passive heatsink in a ventilated enclosure. The NX at 20W+ demands active cooling in nearly all fanless designs.
- Battery-powered deployments: At 7W average draw with INT8 optimization, the Nano provides 40–60% longer battery life than the NX for equivalent single-stream inference tasks. A 30 Wh battery yields 3.5–4.5 hours on the Nano vs ~2 hours on the NX.
- PoE-powered edge nodes: Standard PoE (802.3af, 12.95W at device) supports the Nano at its default TDP. The NX requires PoE+ or PoE++ infrastructure, which may not be available in retrofit installations.
- Cost-sensitive deployments: At $249 vs $599, the Nano costs 58% less. For distributed deployments with many nodes running light workloads, this saves $350 per node.
→ See how Nano's 15W mode compares to MAXN Super →
When the Orin NX Wins
The NX justifies its higher power draw when the workload exceeds what the Nano can deliver. Specific scenarios:
- 8–16 cameras at 1080p: The Nano tops out at ~6 streams. The NX handles ~12 streams at 28W, which is more power-efficient than running two Nano nodes (2×14W = 28W module power, plus two carrier boards, two enclosures, and two power supplies).
- Heavier models (YOLO11m, YOLO11l, ResNet-50 FP16): Medium and large models saturate the Nano's 67 TOPS quickly. The NX's 157 TOPS and 16GB of memory allow running models that would either not fit or would throttle the Nano.
- Multi-model pipelines: Running detection + classification + tracking simultaneously requires both compute headroom and memory. The NX's 16GB accommodates multiple TensorRT engines in memory without swapping.
- Growth headroom: If the deployment will scale from 4 cameras to 12 over time, starting with the NX avoids a costly platform swap later. The 25W default mode runs 4 cameras at ~40% GPU utilization, leaving room to grow.
- Indoor grid-powered installations: When power is abundant and heat dissipation is manageable (server rooms, indoor kiosks, industrial enclosures with fans), the NX's higher power draw is irrelevant. The additional throughput and memory are pure upside.
→ Use the Hardware Selector to compare platforms for your workload →
Decision Matrix
The following matrix maps camera count and power budget to a platform recommendation. These assume YOLO11n or YOLO11s at INT8 precision, 1080p resolution, 15fps per stream, and continuous recording.
| Cameras | Power Budget | Recommendation | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–4 | ≤15W | Orin Nano | Comfortably within Nano's default mode; NX wastes power on idle overhead |
| 4–8 | ≤25W | Orin Nano (MAXN) or NX | Nano at MAXN handles 6–8 streams at 20–28W; NX at 25W default handles the same with more headroom |
| 8–16 | ≤40W | Orin NX | Exceeds Nano's stream capacity; NX at default mode handles 8–12 streams within budget |
| 16+ | Any | Multiple nodes or AGX Orin | Beyond single NX capacity; use 2–3 NX nodes or step up to AGX Orin (275 TOPS, 60W) |
The 4–8 camera range is the gray zone where both platforms are viable. The deciding factors in this range are: (1) whether the enclosure supports active cooling (NX requires it), (2) whether the power source provides 25W+ (NX minimum), and (3) whether the model is lightweight (Nano-friendly) or medium-weight (NX-friendly).
Thermal and Cooling Implications
Power consumption directly determines cooling requirements. The relationship is straightforward: every watt consumed becomes a watt of heat that must be dissipated. The thermal design implications differ significantly between the two platforms.
| Thermal Consideration | Orin Nano | Orin NX |
|---|---|---|
| Passive cooling viable? | Yes, at ≤12W sustained | Only at ≤10W (light loads) |
| Active cooling required above | ~15W sustained | ~15W sustained |
| Throttling threshold | 80°C junction | 80°C junction |
| Typical production cooling | Heatsink ± small fan | Heatsink + fan (mandatory) |
The practical difference: the Nano can run fanless in many deployments (outdoor cameras, PoE-powered nodes, sealed enclosures with adequate thermal mass). The NX almost always needs a fan in production, which adds cost, noise, a mechanical failure point, and ingress protection challenges for outdoor enclosures.
→ Jetson thermal limits: when fanless systems start throttling →
PoE and Power Sourcing
Power-over-Ethernet compatibility is a critical factor for camera-adjacent edge deployments. The PoE standard hierarchy determines which platform fits without infrastructure upgrades:
| PoE Standard | Power at Device | Orin Nano | Orin NX |
|---|---|---|---|
| 802.3af (PoE) | 12.95W | Fits at default 15W TDP (light loads) | Insufficient |
| 802.3at (PoE+) | 25.5W | Fits with headroom | Fits at default TDP (tight) |
| 802.3bt (PoE++) | 51W / 71W | Ample headroom | Fits all modes including MAXN |
For retrofit installations where existing PoE switches provide only 802.3af, the Nano is the only viable option without upgrading switch infrastructure. This is a common constraint in building security and retail deployments where the network switch was installed years before the edge AI upgrade.
→ Calculate your PoE power budget for multi-camera systems →
FAQ
Is the Orin NX worth the extra power draw over the Orin Nano?
It depends on your workload. The Orin NX draws 1.5–2× more power than the Orin Nano, but delivers 2.3× the INT8 throughput (157 vs 67 TOPS) and double the memory (16GB vs 8GB). If your deployment handles 8+ cameras or runs medium/large detection models, the NX provides better throughput per dollar despite the higher power draw. For 1–6 cameras with lightweight models, the Nano's power efficiency is hard to beat.
Can I run both Orin Nano and Orin NX on PoE power?
The Orin Nano fits comfortably within a standard PoE budget (IEEE 802.3af provides 12.95W at the device). The Orin NX at its default 25W TDP requires PoE+ (802.3at, 25.5W at device) or PoE++ (802.3bt). In practice, Orin NX deployments with peripherals typically need 30–40W total system power, making PoE++ the safer choice. Always account for cable losses and peripheral loads when sizing PoE infrastructure.
Which platform is better for battery-powered deployments?
The Orin Nano is the clear winner for battery deployments. At 7W average draw with INT8 optimization, a 30 Wh battery provides 3.5–4.5 hours of runtime. The Orin NX at its minimum practical draw of 12–14W cuts that to roughly 2 hours with the same battery. If your workload fits within the Nano's compute capacity, it delivers 40–60% longer battery life for equivalent inference tasks.
Estimate Power for Your Deployment
Use the EdgeAIStack tools to calculate exact power requirements for your camera setup — including compute, PoE budget, and peripheral overhead.
→ Calculate Orin Nano power for your workload
→ Calculate Orin NX power for your workload
→ Design a full edge AI system (compute + storage + bandwidth + power)
Conclusion
The Orin Nano and Orin NX occupy distinct power tiers: 5–28W vs 7–50W. For deployments with 1–6 cameras, tight power budgets, fanless enclosures, or battery operation, the Orin Nano delivers better power efficiency and lower cost. For 8–16 camera deployments, heavier models, or scenarios requiring compute headroom, the Orin NX justifies its higher power draw with 2.3× the throughput and double the memory.
The crossover point is around 6–8 cameras: below that, the Nano is the right platform; above that, the NX becomes the more practical and often more power-efficient choice (one NX vs two Nanos). In the gray zone, the deciding factors are cooling constraints, PoE infrastructure, and whether the workload is expected to grow.
For more details, see the NVIDIA Jetson module specifications and nvpmodel documentation.
Explore the Power Consumption Cluster
Size your Jetson deployment
Use the Module Power Calculator to model thermal modes, peripheral loads, and battery runtime. Then explore other deployment guides for NVMe, PoE, and architecture patterns.