AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently records no benchmark scores for either the AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X or the Lisuan Tech LX MAX. Both entries hold an identical percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero. This means direct performance comparisons must be derived from the recorded hardware specifications rather than measured workloads. The MI300X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS, indicating a 3.3x advantage for the AMD part in single-precision throughput. In FP16, the MI300X reaches 653.7 TFLOPS using an 8:1 ratio, whereas the LX MAX produces 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, a 13.3x gap. The MI300X also leads in texture rate at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 6.6x margin. The LX MAX counters in pixel throughput, recording 192.0 GPixel/s while the MI300X lists 0 MPixel/s, as the AMD accelerator has no raster output stage. Memory bandwidth strongly favors the MI300X at 10.3 TB/s of HBM3 across an 8192-bit bus, compared to 432.0 GB/s of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus for the LX MAX, a 23.8x difference. The LX MAX uses 225 W of power, while the MI300X consumes 750 W, making the AMD board substantially more power-hungry. The LX MAX supports a full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the MI300X lists no graphics API support, reflecting its compute-only design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X records 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 3.3x the 24.58 TFLOPS delivered by the Lisuan Tech LX MAX.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI300X uses 192 GB of HBM3 on an 8192-bit bus with 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. The LX MAX uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does either card support standard graphics APIs?

A: Only the LX MAX lists API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The MI300X has no listed DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support and has no display outputs.

Q: What are the physical and power requirements of each card?

A: The MI300X is an OAM Module with no power connectors, a 750 W TDP, and a suggested 1150 W power supply. The LX MAX is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm by 118 mm by 48 mm, uses a single 16-pin connector, has a 225 W TDP, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The LX MAX produces 192.0 GPixel/s, while the MI300X is recorded at 0 MPixel/s because it lacks a raster operation pipeline.

Q: What process nodes are used by each chip?

A: The MI300X uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the LX MAX uses a 6 nm process from TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The MI300X is built on AMD's CDNA 3.0 architecture with the Aqua Vanjaram chip, designed for data center compute. The LX MAX uses a TrueGPU architecture with the 7G106 chip, belonging to the 7G100 generation. The MI300X integrates 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4 million per mm². The LX MAX lists unknown transistor count and die size. The MI300X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and no ROPs, while the LX MAX has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MI300X has no display outputs and uses an OAM Module form factor with no power connectors, relying on an external 1150 W power supply recommendation. The LX MAX includes four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a dual-slot design, a single 16-pin power connector, and a 550 W power supply suggestion. The MI300X connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI300X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz, with memory at 2525 MHz or 10.1 Gbps effective. The LX MAX lists no base or boost clocks but has memory at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The MI300X was released on 2023-12-05, while the LX MAX has a release date of 2026-03-16 and an active production status. The MI300X lists its predecessor as FirePro Data Center, while the LX MAX has no predecessor recorded.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two GPUs into different categories. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X delivers dominant compute and memory bandwidth figures, with 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, 653.7 TFLOPS FP16, 192 GB of HBM3, and 10.3 TB/s of bandwidth. It is designed for large-scale data center workloads where raw throughput matters more than power efficiency or display support. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX offers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, 49.15 TFLOPS FP16, 12 GB of GDDR6, and 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, but it is the only one of the two with graphics API support, display outputs, and a pixel fill rate. The LX MAX also consumes one-third the power of the MI300X, at 225 W versus 750 W, and fits in a standard dual-slot PCIe card with a 16-pin connector. The MI300X lacks any raster output stage, so it cannot drive displays or function in traditional graphics workloads. The LX MAX, with its DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support, is positioned for graphics-capable tasks. The MI300X has no listed graphics APIs and no display outputs, making it unsuitable for client-side rendering. The choice depends on the workload: the MI300X serves compute-heavy environments requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth, while the LX MAX serves applications needing graphics rendering and standard PCIe installation. The MI300X holds a 3.3x lead in FP32 and a 23.8x lead in memory bandwidth, while the LX MAX holds a definitive advantage in pixel rate and API compatibility. Both GPUs share a 50th percentile ranking in the database, but that figure reflects an absence of benchmark data rather than comparable measured performance. The recorded specifications indicate the MI300X is the superior compute accelerator, while the LX MAX is the more flexible graphics-capable card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI300X | Lisuan Tech LX MAX |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | TrueGPU |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | 7G106 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | Unknown |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | Unknown |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2525 MHz, 10.1 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 192 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 10.3 TB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,456 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 192 |

| ROPs | 0 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 653.7 TFLOPS (8:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 750 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1150 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | Not listed | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | Not listed | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 248 mm x 118 mm x 48 mm |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-12-05 | 2026-03-16 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Data Center | Not listed |