AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark scores for these two products. The benchmark arrays for both the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Lisuan Tech LX MAX are empty, and the win counters show zero for each side. Without measured performance data, direct numerical comparisons of frame rates or compute throughput cannot be established from the available records.

What the data does provide is a clear picture of theoretical peak throughput, which points to a substantial gap between the two. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is rated for 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is rated for 7.885 TFLOPS. That places the Lisuan Tech part at roughly three times the FP32 throughput of the AMD card. In FP16, the gap widens further: the LX MAX delivers 49.15 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Lisuan Tech board has more than six times the FP16 throughput.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The LX MAX outputs 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s, compared to 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400. The Lisuan Tech part is roughly 2.7 times faster in pixel fill and about 3.1 times faster in texture fill.

Memory bandwidth also favors the LX MAX by a wide margin. The Lisuan Tech card uses a 192-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6 at an effective 18 Gbps, yielding 432.0 GB/s. The AMD card uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6 at an effective 10.8 Gbps, yielding 172.8 GB/s. That is a 2.5 times bandwidth advantage for the LX MAX.

The absence of direct benchmark scores means these peak rates are the only quantitative basis for comparison. They indicate that the Lisuan Tech LX MAX occupies a different performance tier entirely, with roughly three times the compute, pixel, and texture throughput, plus more than twice the memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a 6 nm process node from TSMC, but the architectural design diverges sharply. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses a chip designated 7G106, built on an architecture labeled TrueGPU, and belongs to the 7G100 generation.

The transistor counts tell a different story. The AMD Navi 33 die contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The LX MAX lists its transistor count, die size, and density as unknown or null in the database, so no direct comparison is possible on those metrics.

Shading unit counts differ dramatically. The LX MAX has 6,144 shading units, while the W7400 has 1,792. Texture mapping units are 192 versus 112, and raster output units are 96 versus 64. The LX MAX also carries no listed ray tracing cores, while the AMD card includes 28 RT cores. Neither card lists tensor cores.

Memory architecture differs in capacity, bus width, and speed. The LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 18 Gbps effective speed. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 10.8 Gbps effective speed. The memory clock for the LX MAX is listed as 2250 MHz, while the W7400 memory clock is 1350 MHz.

Clock speeds for the GPU core are only partially recorded. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Lisuan Tech card lists no base or boost clock values, so core frequency comparison is not possible from the data.

API support shows some differences. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The W7400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3. Display outputs also differ: the AMD card has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the Lisuan Tech card has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The LX MAX uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The power delivery systems are very different. The LX MAX is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP and a single 16-pin power connector, requiring a 550 W suggested PSU. The W7400 is a single-slot card with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded specifications, the Lisuan Tech LX MAX wins in every measured performance category. It has higher FP32 throughput by a factor of roughly 3.1, higher FP16 throughput by a factor of about 6.2, higher pixel rate by about 2.7 times, higher texture rate by about 3.1 times, and higher memory bandwidth by 2.5 times. It also has more memory capacity, a wider memory bus, more shading units, more TMUs, and more ROPs.

The LX MAX is positioned for workloads that demand high raw compute throughput, large memory buffers, and fast memory bandwidth. Its 12 GB frame buffer and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth suit rendering tasks with large textures, high-resolution viewports, or compute workloads that process substantial datasets. The 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 figure indicates strong performance in mixed-precision workloads that can use the 2:1 FP16 ratio.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins on efficiency and physical footprint. Its 55 W TDP versus 225 W for the LX MAX means it draws a fraction of the power. It requires no external power connectors, while the LX MAX needs a 16-pin connector. The suggested PSU for the AMD card is 250 W, compared to 550 W for the Lisuan Tech part. The W7400 is single-slot and much smaller: 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, versus 248 mm long, 118 mm tall, and 48 mm wide for the LX MAX.

The AMD card also supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is a newer standard than the DisplayPort 1.4a on the LX MAX. It has ray tracing cores, which the LX MAX does not list, and supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 on the LX MAX.

The release dates differ. The W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, while the LX MAX is dated 2026-03-16. The AMD card lists its predecessor as the Radeon Pro Vega, while the LX MAX has no predecessor listed.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The chip designations are Navi 33 versus 7G106. The architectures are RDNA 3.0 versus TrueGPU. The codenames are Hotpink Bonefish versus none. The generations are Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus 7G100. The manufacturers are AMD versus Unknown.

Transistor count is 13,300 million for the W7400 versus unknown for the LX MAX. Die size is 204 mm² versus unknown. Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² versus null.

Core clocks: the W7400 has a base of 330 MHz and boost of 1100 MHz, while the LX MAX lists neither. Memory clocks are 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory: 8 GB versus 12 GB, both GDDR6. Bus width is 128 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 1,792 versus 6,144. TMUs: 112 versus 192. ROPs: 64 versus 96. RT cores: 28 versus none.

Pixel rate: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 55 W versus 225 W. Slot width: single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 550 W.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3. DirectX and OpenGL support are identical.

Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm versus 248 mm x 118 mm x 48 mm.

Release dates: 2025-08-02 versus 2026-03-16. The W7400 has a predecessor, the Radeon Pro Vega; the LX MAX has none. Neither card lists a successor or a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is rated at 24.58 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is rated at 7.885 TFLOPS. The LX MAX has roughly three times the FP32 throughput.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX has 2.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 lists ray tracing cores, with 28 RT cores. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no RT core count listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7400 has a 55 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The LX MAX has a 225 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Do the cards support the same display outputs?

A: No. The W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the LX MAX has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The AMD W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm by 118 mm by 48 mm.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two cards in different performance and power classes. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is the clear performance leader by the numbers that exist. Its FP32 throughput of 24.58 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput of 49.15 TFLOPS, pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s, and memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s all dwarf the corresponding figures for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The LX MAX also carries 12 GB of memory, 6,144 shading units, and a 192-bit bus.

The AMD W7400 counters with a much lower 55 W TDP, no power connectors, a compact single-slot design, and DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. It also includes ray tracing cores and Vulkan 1.4 support, neither of which the LX MAX lists. For systems with tight power budgets, limited physical space, or a need for the latest display standard, the W7400 is the practical choice.

For workloads that prioritize raw compute throughput, large memory capacity, and high memory bandwidth, the LX MAX is the only option that makes sense based on the data. The 225 W TDP and dual-slot footprint are the trade-offs for that performance.

The absence of measured benchmark scores means the comparison rests entirely on rated specifications. The peak rates are not guarantees of real-world application performance, but the margins are large enough that the LX MAX should hold a commanding lead in compute-bound tasks. The W7400 is better suited to compact workstations where power draw and physical size matter more than peak throughput. Each card wins in its own context, but the performance gap between them is substantial and consistent across every recorded metric.