AMD Instinct MI325X vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identifiers of the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X is built on the CDNA 3.0 architecture using the Aqua Vanjaram chip, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G105 chip, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two accelerators?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X features 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO carries 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which device has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Lisuan Tech LX PRO reaches 24.58 TFLOPS. The MI325X is approximately 3.3 times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and suggests a 1400 W power supply. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO has a TDP of 225 W and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Are there differences in display output capabilities?

A: Yes. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no display outputs, while the Lisuan Tech LX PRO includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses an OAM Module slot width with no power connectors listed. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO is a Dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, and 48 mm in width, with a single 16-pin power connector.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Instinct MI325X and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO represent fundamentally different design philosophies within the database. The MI325X is a data center accelerator built around the CDNA 3.0 architecture, specifically the Aqua Vanjaram chip. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC and contains 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The LX PRO, in contrast, uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G105 chip, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The compute pipelines diverge sharply. The MI325X houses 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but it has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its non-rendering accelerator role. The LX PRO contains 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, indicating a more conventional graphics-capable design. Texture rates also differ: the MI325X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the LX PRO delivers 384.0 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture separates the two clearly. The MI325X uses HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus for 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, with a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The LX PRO uses GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus for 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The MI325X has no display outputs, no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, and operates as a PCIe 5.0 x16 device. The LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and connects via PCIe 4.0 x16.

Power delivery reflects the performance divide. The MI325X is rated at 1000 W TDP with a suggested 1400 W power supply, while the LX PRO is rated at 225 W TDP with a suggested 550 W power supply. The MI325X is an OAM Module with no power connectors, while the LX PRO is a Dual-slot card with a single 16-pin connector. The release dates also differ: the MI325X was released in October 2024, and the LX PRO is dated March 2026, with the LX PRO marked as Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains no direct head-to-head results between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO. Both entries have empty benchmark arrays, zero wins each, and identical percentile rankings of 50 against all GPUs in the database. The average benchmark score for each is 0, and neither device has nearest rival entries. Therefore, the comparison must be drawn from the specification-level measurements recorded in the database.

FP32 compute is the clearest indicator of raw throughput. The MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS, which is 3.3 times the 24.58 TFLOPS of the LX PRO. In FP16, the MI325X maintains 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the LX PRO reaches 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. This means the MI325X leads FP16 by a factor of approximately 1.7, even though the LX PRO doubles its FP32 rate when moving to FP16.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive gap. The MI325X provides 6.14 TB/s, which is roughly 14.2 times the 432.0 GB/s of the LX PRO. Memory capacity also favors the MI325X heavily at 256 GB versus 24 GB. The bus width difference, 8192-bit versus 192-bit, explains most of the bandwidth disparity.

Texture throughput favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s compared to 384.0 GTexel/s for the LX PRO, a ratio of about 6.7 to 1. The LX PRO counters in pixel throughput, with 192.0 GPixel/s against the MI325X's 0 MPixel/s, since the MI325X lacks ROPs entirely. The LX PRO also brings display outputs, four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the MI325X has none.

Power efficiency can be inferred from the recorded TDP figures relative to compute. The MI325X produces 81.72 TFLOPS at 1000 W, yielding approximately 0.082 TFLOPS per watt. The LX PRO produces 24.58 TFLOPS at 225 W, yielding approximately 0.109 TFLOPS per watt. The LX PRO holds an efficiency advantage of about 33 percent in this metric. In FP16, the MI325X achieves 0.082 TFLOPS per watt, while the LX PRO achieves 0.218 TFLOPS per watt, since its FP16 output is double its FP32 output. The LX PRO is over 2.6 times more efficient in FP16 per watt.

Specification Differences

The two devices differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Process node: the MI325X uses 5 nm, the LX PRO uses 6 nm. Transistors: the MI325X has 153,000 million, the LX PRO lists unknown. Die size: the MI325X is 1017 mm², the LX PRO lists unknown. Transistor density: the MI325X has 150.4M per mm², the LX PRO has none recorded.

Clock speeds: the MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, while the LX PRO has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the MI325X versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the LX PRO. Memory size: 256 GB versus 24 GB. Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 19,456 versus 6,144. TMUs: 1,216 versus 192. ROPs: 0 versus 96. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 1000 W versus 225 W. Slot width: OAM Module versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: None versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU: 1400 W versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support: none for the MI325X versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 for the LX PRO.

Dimensions are only recorded for the LX PRO: 248 mm length, 118 mm height, 48 mm width. The MI325X has no dimension data. Release dates differ: October 2024 for the MI325X, March 2026 for the LX PRO. Production status is Active for the LX PRO, while the MI325X has no recorded status. Neither device has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two devices into distinct roles. The AMD Instinct MI325X is positioned for memory-bound, high-throughput acceleration workloads. Its 256 GB HBM3e pool, 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, and 81.72 TFLOPS FP32 output place it in a class of compute that the Lisuan Tech LX PRO cannot approach. The MI325X also leads in texture rate, shading units, and transistor count. Its lack of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms a server-focused design.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO targets conventional graphics and rendering tasks. It is the only one of the two with ROPs, pixel output, display connectors, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested power supply make it far less demanding on system power infrastructure. The FP16 efficiency calculation favors the LX PRO at 0.218 TFLOPS per watt versus 0.082 TFLOPS per watt for the MI325X, and the FP32 efficiency also favors the LX PRO at 0.109 versus 0.082 TFLOPS per watt.

The MI325X is the choice for applications that need massive memory capacity and bandwidth, along with maximum FP32 throughput, and can accommodate a 1000 W OAM module with a 1400 W power supply. The LX PRO is the choice for systems requiring a dual-slot PCIe card with display outputs, graphics API compatibility, and lower power consumption. Neither device has benchmark scores or nearest rival comparisons in the database, so relative real-world performance beyond these specifications cannot be established. The data confirms that these are complementary products aimed at different segments, not direct substitutes.