AMD Instinct MI455X vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

AMD Instinct MI455X and Lisuan Tech LX PRO occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the recorded data confirms that immediately. The MI455X is a 2 nm, 2300 W compute module built for massive parallel workloads, while the LX PRO is a 6 nm, 225 W dual-slot card with display outputs. Their benchmark scores are both zero, and both sit at the 50th percentile in the database, but the underlying specifications tell a story of two entirely different design goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two accelerators. Both the AMD Instinct MI455X and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO show an average benchmark score of zero, with no recorded wins for either side in the head-to-head section. The percentile ranking for both is identical at 50, which places them in the middle of the distribution for all GPUs in the database, but this is a function of missing data rather than comparable performance.

What the data does provide is a set of peak theoretical rates that highlight the scale of difference. The MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the LX PRO manages 24.58 TFLOPS. That is a 6.4x advantage for the AMD part in single-precision floating point. In FP16, the gap narrows slightly but remains enormous: the MI455X outputs 157.3 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the LX PRO reaches 49.15 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. The AMD accelerator is 3.2x ahead in half-precision throughput.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The MI455X has 23.3 TB/s of bandwidth from its 432 GB HBM4 pool on a 24576-bit bus. The LX PRO has 432.0 GB/s from 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The MI455X is 54x faster in raw memory bandwidth, and it holds 18x more memory capacity. Texture rate also favors the AMD part heavily: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 6.4x lead. Pixel rate is the one area where the LX PRO posts a non-zero figure, 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI455X lists 0 MPixel/s because it has no display outputs or rasterization pipeline.

Where Each One Wins

The MI455X wins in every compute-heavy metric recorded in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 157.3 TFLOPS is the headline number, and its FP16 performance matches that figure without any rate adjustment. The 432 GB memory pool is suited for models and datasets that would not fit in the 24 GB frame buffer of the LX PRO. The 23.3 TB/s bandwidth means the AMD part can feed its 32,768 shading units without stalling, while the LX PRO has to work with 6,144 shading units and a 432.0 GB/s pipe.

The LX PRO wins in areas that the MI455X does not address. It has 96 ROPs and a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, which makes it a functional graphics card. The MI455X has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The LX PRO also provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI455X has no display outputs at all. The LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the MI455X lists N/A for all three APIs. For any workload that requires rendering to a screen, running a game, or using a standard graphics API, the LX PRO is the only option between the two.

The power envelope also separates them. The LX PRO draws 225 W under load and recommends a 550 W power supply, fitting into a standard dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x16 slot with a single 16-pin connector. The MI455X has a 2300 W TDP and recommends a 2700 W power supply, uses an EAM Module slot width, and has no power connectors because it is not a plug-in card in the conventional sense. The LX PRO is a drop-in consumer or workstation card; the MI455X is a data-center module.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Instinct MI455X uses CDNA 5.0, which is the fifth generation of AMD's compute-focused architecture, built on a 2 nm process at TSMC. The chip is designated MI450 256CU, which indicates 256 compute units, and the die measures 2990 mm² with 320,000 million transistors. That works out to a transistor density of 107.0M per mm². The LX PRO uses an architecture called TrueGPU, based on a chip labeled 7G105, from a generation called 7G100. It is built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, but the database lists transistor count and die size as unknown.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The MI455X uses HBM4, the fourth generation of high-bandwidth memory, with a 24576-bit bus and 23.3 TB/s bandwidth. The LX PRO uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI455X memory clock is 1900 MHz with 7.6 Gbps effective data rate; the LX PRO memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The LX PRO has a higher memory clock but far narrower bus and lower total bandwidth.

Compute unit organization differs as well. The MI455X has 32,768 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. The LX PRO has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Neither part lists tensor cores or ray tracing cores in the database. The MI455X has no display outputs, while the LX PRO has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The bus interface is PCIe 6.0 x16 on the AMD part and PCIe 4.0 x16 on the Lisuan part.

The MI455X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation and lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The LX PRO has no predecessor listed and its production status is Active, which suggests it is currently available. The MI455X release date is 2026-07-22, while the LX PRO release date is 2026-03-16, so the Lisuan card came to market roughly four months earlier.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI455X delivers 157.3 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Lisuan Tech LX PRO delivers 24.58 TFLOPS. The MI455X is 6.4x faster in this metric.

Q: Can either card output video to a monitor?

A: Only the Lisuan Tech LX PRO has display outputs, with four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The AMD Instinct MI455X has no display outputs and lists a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI455X has 432 GB of HBM4 memory, while the LX PRO has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory. The MI455X holds 18x more memory.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD Instinct MI455X lists N/A for all graphics APIs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI455X has a TDP of 2300 W and suggests a 2700 W power supply. The LX PRO has a TDP of 225 W and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for either card?

A: Both cards show an average benchmark score of zero in the database, and neither has any head-to-head benchmark entries or nearest rivals listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Instinct MI455X is a compute accelerator with no graphics functionality. Its 157.3 TFLOPS FP32, 23.3 TB/s bandwidth, and 432 GB memory make it a tool for large-scale numerical workloads, AI training, or scientific simulation. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a power draw of 2300 W that requires a 2700 W power supply. It is not a card for a desktop workstation in any conventional sense.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO is a conventional graphics card. It has 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, 49.15 TFLOPS FP16, 24 GB of GDDR6, and 96 ROPs. It outputs to four DisplayPort 1.4a monitors, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and fits in a dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x16 slot with a 225 W TDP. The LX PRO is the only one of the two that can render frames to a screen, run a graphics API, or be installed in a standard PC case.

For a user whose workload is pure compute, the MI455X is the obvious choice based on the recorded numbers. The 6.4x FP32 advantage and 54x bandwidth advantage are decisive for any task that can use them. For a user who needs a GPU that displays output, uses standard graphics APIs, or fits within a normal power budget, the LX PRO is the only viable option. The MI455X cannot do any of those things.

The lack of benchmark data means there is no empirical performance comparison to draw on. The database shows zero scores for both, so the verdict rests entirely on specification differences. Those differences are stark. One is a compute module with no rasterization, no display, and no API support. The other is a full-featured graphics card with a display pipeline, API compliance, and a manageable power footprint. The choice is not between two similar products; it is between two product categories that happen to share the GPU label.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Instinct MI455X and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus Unknown
• Chip: MI450 256CU versus 7G105
• Architecture: CDNA 5.0 versus TrueGPU
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) versus 7G100
• Process node: 2 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 320,000 million versus unknown
• Die size: 2990 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor density: 107.0M / mm² versus not listed
• Base clock: 1000 MHz versus not listed
• Boost clock: 2400 MHz versus not listed
• Memory clock: 1900 MHz 7.6 Gbps effective versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 432 GB versus 24 GB
• Memory type: HBM4 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 24576 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 23.3 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 32768 versus 6144
• Texture mapping units: 1024 versus 192
• ROPs: 0 versus 96
• Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 157.3 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS
• FP16 compute: 157.3 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 2300 W versus 225 W
• Slot width: EAM Module versus Dual-slot
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: 2700 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 6.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL support: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan support: N/A versus 1.3
• Dimensions: not listed versus 248 mm length, 118 mm height, 48 mm width
• Production status: not listed versus Active
• Release date: 2026-07-22 versus 2026-03-16
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct versus not listed

The two cards share no overlapping specifications beyond the fact that both are GPUs manufactured at TSMC. Everything else, from process node to memory type to power draw to display capability, is different. The database records no benchmarks for either, so the comparison is purely architectural. That architecture alone is enough to separate them into distinct use cases.