AMD Instinct MI300X vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark score in the database for either part is the Geekbench OpenCL result for the AMD Instinct MI300X, which posts a score of 317994. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no recorded benchmark entries, so head-to-head comparison relies on the MI300X's position against its nearest rivals in the database rather than a direct score against the LX MAX.

The AMD Instinct MI300X sits at the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database, meaning the recorded data places it at the very top of the performance distribution. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA B200, scores 345482, which is 8% higher. The NVIDIA H200 NVL scores 334891, also 5% higher than the MI300X. On the other side, the MI300X beats the NVIDIA L40S (295763) by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287237) by 10.7%. These deltas give the MI300X a clear standing: it trails the two top-tier NVIDIA accelerators by single-digit margins but leads the next tier by similar margins. The LX MAX, with a 50th percentile ranking and no benchmark score, cannot be positioned against the MI300X in any direct numerical comparison, so the only meaningful benchmark analysis comes from the MI300X's rival deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI300X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output is 81.72 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output is 81.72 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain a half-precision boost. The LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, so it more than doubles its FP32 rate when moving to FP16. In absolute terms, the MI300X is roughly 3.3 times higher in FP32, but the LX MAX's FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is notable for workloads that can use half precision. The MI300X also dominates memory capacity and bandwidth: 192 GB of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus produces 5.32 TB/s, while the LX MAX offers 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus for 432.0 GB/s. That is about 12.3 times the bandwidth in favor of the MI300X. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the MI300X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s for the LX MAX, a 6.65 times difference.

The LX MAX wins in areas tied to conventional graphics and system integration. It has 96 ROPs and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300X has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, which means the MI300X has no rasterization pipeline at all. The LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the MI300X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The LX MAX also provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI300X has no display outputs. The LX MAX is a dual-slot card with a 16-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU, whereas the MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a 1150 W suggested PSU. The LX MAX is an active production product with a physical card footprint of 248 mm length, 118 mm height, and 48 mm width; the MI300X has no production status listed and no dimensions recorded.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Instinct MI300X compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The MI300X scores 317994 in Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA B200 leads by 8% (345482), the NVIDIA H200 NVL leads by 5% (334891), the NVIDIA L40S trails by 7.5% (295763), and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation trails by 10.7% (287237).

Q: Why does the Lisuan Tech LX MAX have no benchmark score?

A: The database lists no benchmark entries for the LX MAX, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. Its percentile rank is 50, but this is not tied to any measured score.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, while the LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which GPU supports graphics APIs?

A: Only the LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MI300X lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 5.32 TB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can either GPU output to displays?

A: The LX MAX has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI300X has no display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded field. The MI300X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, built on the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture and the Instinct (MIx) generation. The LX MAX uses a 6 nm TSMC process with the 7G106 chip, TrueGPU architecture, and the 7G100 generation. The MI300X has 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, giving a density of 150.4M per mm²; the LX MAX has unknown transistor count, unknown die size, and no density figure. Base clock for the MI300X is 1000 MHz with a boost of 2100 MHz; the LX MAX has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clock differs as well: the MI300X runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), while the LX MAX runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Shading units are 19456 for the MI300X versus 6144 for the LX MAX; TMUs are 1216 versus 192; ROPs are 0 versus 96. The MI300X has no recorded ray tracing or tensor core counts, and neither does the LX MAX. TDP is 750 W for the MI300X and 225 W for the LX MAX. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 1150 W; the LX MAX is a dual-slot card with one 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the MI300X, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the LX MAX. The LX MAX has dimensions of 248 mm by 118 mm by 48 mm; the MI300X has none recorded. The LX MAX lists an active production status and a release date of 2026-03-16; the MI300X lists no production status and a release date of 2023-12-05. The MI300X's predecessor is recorded as Radeon Instinct, while the LX MAX has no predecessor.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on CDNA 3.0, a compute-focused architecture with no graphics pipeline. The LX MAX uses an architecture labeled TrueGPU, which includes a full rasterization pipeline with 96 ROPs and a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate. The MI300X has zero ROPs and a 0 MPixel/s pixel rate, confirming it is not designed for rasterized graphics output. The MI300X provides FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning half-precision does not increase throughput; the LX MAX provides FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. The MI300X uses HBM3 memory, which delivers 5.32 TB/s over an 8192-bit bus; the LX MAX uses GDDR6, which delivers 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus. The MI300X has no display outputs and no graphics API support; the LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 and provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI300X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300X is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm node with 153,000 million transistors; the LX MAX is fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm node with an unknown transistor count. The MI300X is an OAM module with no power connectors; the LX MAX is a dual-slot card with a single 16-pin power connector. The MI300X's nearest rivals in the database are all NVIDIA accelerators: the B200, H200 NVL, L40S, and RTX 6000 Ada Generation. The LX MAX has no rivals listed.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward split. The AMD Instinct MI300X is a high-bandwidth, high-throughput compute accelerator with 192 GB of HBM3, 5.32 TB/s of memory bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 317994 that places it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs. It trails the NVIDIA B200 by 8% and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 5% in that benchmark, but it leads the NVIDIA L40S by 7.5% and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation by 10.7%. Its lack of ROPs, display outputs, and graphics API support means it is not suited for rasterization or consumer display workloads.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is a conventional dual-slot graphics card with 12 GB of GDDR6, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, 49.15 TFLOPS FP16, 96 ROPs, a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. It has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a 225 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, and an active production status. It has no benchmark scores in the database, so its actual performance relative to the MI300X cannot be quantified.

The choice depends on workload type. For compute-heavy tasks that need massive memory capacity and bandwidth, the MI300X is the only option between the two. For any workload requiring graphics output, rasterization, or standard PCIe 4.0 consumer integration, the LX MAX is the only option. The MI300X is a data-center accelerator with no display path; the LX MAX is a graphics card with a full display and API feature set. The database shows no overlap in their intended functions.