A problem seems to be that Tesla have given the maximum TOP's they can possibly manage but not the maximum power used to attain those TOP's, instead they've measured the power draw in the vehicle that's running their specific software (at 2300 frames per second).
Software that can run at 2300fps on a 144 TOP system won't push a 320 TOP system to 100%, it'll just perform the necessary calculations faster and wait in an idle state until the next frame, or maybe never even reach it's highest power state and run at lower clocks and power?
Good point but would still be several times the price of the Tesla solution that seems to do the job just fine.
Nvidia solution was more expensive, not inferior.
Tesla making their own chips cost a hell of a lot less compared to an AI chip that is not just dedicated to what they need. They can make chips that are more suited to them, smaller and less power hungry, and run their own custom code.
Tesla put all their ground work on nvidia chips. They actually had self driving solution under nvidia, but decided to wait until they can put it on their own chips, which is why it took a few more years to finalize it.
Nvidia's problem is that they are not as flexible as AMD or other dedicated solutions. They will not bend over to make a dedicated solution for a customer, but they expect their customers to adjust themselves to nvidia.
This has been reducing their customer list for the last decade by quite a lot.
Its not surprising how Nvidia lose out of markets because their solutions cost too much. They could be dominating everything if they'd just keep it reasonable.
I remember seeing Nvidia lash out about Tesla's claims and immediately knew what Tesla had was the real deal and Nvidia wasn't happy. I'm actually in the market for a new car and i'm very very heavily leaning on getting a model 3. Trying to see if i can secure a good deal on one in June as i've heard others be successful in getting decent discounts at the end of a quarter on unclaimed inventory.