AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA. Both entries in the database show an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The percentile versus all GPUs is identical at 50 for both parts, indicating that, within the current database scope, neither card has accumulated comparative performance measurements.

Without direct comparative scores, the available quantitative comparison must rely on the computed specifications recorded for each GPU. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 3.12 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The FP16 ratio also diverges: the LX ULTRA reaches 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the W7400 sustains 7.885 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. That means the LX ULTRA offers 6.23 times the FP16 throughput of the W7400.

Memory bandwidth follows the same pattern. The LX ULTRA provides 432.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus, while the W7400 provides 172.8 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. The delta is 2.5 times in favor of the LX ULTRA. The pixel rate for the LX ULTRA is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the W7400, a factor of 2.73. Texture rate shows the LX ULTRA at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400, a factor of 3.12.

The W7400 counters with efficiency and physical integration. Its TDP is 55 W versus 225 W for the LX ULTRA, so the AMD part consumes 24.4% of the power of the Lisuan part while delivering 32.1% of the FP32 performance. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The LX ULTRA is a dual-slot card at 268 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width. The W7400 draws power solely from the PCIe slot with no external power connectors, while the LX ULTRA requires a single 16-pin connector. The suggested power supply for the W7400 is 250 W, compared to 550 W for the LX ULTRA.

The W7400 also leads in display output standard. It offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the LX ULTRA offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan API versions differ: the W7400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA records 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance, compared to 7.885 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The LX ULTRA is 3.12 times higher in this metric.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The LX ULTRA uses 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA has 2.5 times the bandwidth and three times the memory capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a suggested power supply of 250 W. The LX ULTRA has a TDP of 225 W, requires one 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The W7400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3. The W7400 also outputs DisplayPort 2.1, while the LX ULTRA outputs DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide, fitting a single slot. The LX ULTRA is 268 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide, requiring a dual-slot configuration.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, texture mapping units, and ROPs?

A: The LX ULTRA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The LX ULTRA has 3.43 times the shading units, 1.71 times the TMUs, and 1.5 times the ROPs.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type and installation constraints. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is the stronger compute device in absolute terms. Its FP32 output of 24.58 TFLOPS, FP16 output of 49.15 TFLOPS, and memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s place it far ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 on raw throughput. For rendering tasks, simulation workloads, or any operation that scales with shader count and memory capacity, the LX ULTRA is the appropriate choice from the recorded specifications.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the appropriate choice for constrained environments. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot profile, 168 mm length, and lack of external power connectors allow installation in systems where the LX ULTRA cannot fit or cannot be powered. The W7400 also provides DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, which the LX ULTRA does not support. For display-driven workflows that require the newest DisplayPort standard and compact physical integration, the W7400 holds the advantage.

Neither card has recorded benchmark scores or direct rival comparisons in the database at this time, so the verdict rests entirely on specification analysis. The percentile versus all GPUs is equal at 50 for both, which reflects the absence of measured performance data rather than equivalence in capability. The LX ULTRA is the performance leader by every raw compute and memory metric, while the W7400 is the efficiency and form factor leader.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measured category. The W7400 uses the AMD Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip with TrueGPU architecture and belongs to the 7G100 generation. Both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The W7400 has a transistor count of 13,300 million and a die size of 204 mm², giving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The LX ULTRA has unknown transistor count and die size in the database.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The W7400 lists a base clock of 330 MHz, a boost clock of 1100 MHz, and a memory clock of 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective data rate. The LX ULTRA has no base or boost clock recorded, but its memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

Memory capacity and bus width differ: 8 GB versus 24 GB, and 128-bit versus 192-bit. The compute unit counts differ sharply: the W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the LX ULTRA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores; the LX ULTRA has no recorded ray tracing core count. Neither card lists tensor cores.

The LX ULTRA has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, reaching 49.15 TFLOPS, while the W7400 has a 1:1 FP16 ratio at 7.885 TFLOPS. The W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s. The LX ULTRA has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s. The LX ULTRA uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface; the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The power and physical specifications diverge completely. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The LX ULTRA has a TDP of 225 W, is dual-slot, requires one 16-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W power supply. The W7400 measures 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The LX ULTRA measures 268 mm by 112 mm by 40 mm. Display outputs are four DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7400 and four DisplayPort 1.4a for the LX ULTRA.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is substantial. The W7400 is built on RDNA 3.0, AMD's architecture for the Radeon Pro Navi series, using the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the LX ULTRA's recorded specifications. The W7400 also implements a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput; both rates sit at 7.885 TFLOPS.

The LX ULTRA uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G105 chip from the 7G100 generation. Its FP16 rate of 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio indicates a hardware path that doubles FP16 work relative to FP32. That architectural choice gives the LX ULTRA a large advantage in mixed-precision workloads that can use FP16. The LX ULTRA has no recorded ray tracing core count, so no ray tracing capability can be confirmed from the database.

The shading and texture architecture also differs. The LX ULTRA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The LX ULTRA is built for higher parallel throughput across all shader-bound tasks, while the W7400 devotes a portion of its silicon to ray tracing hardware.

Memory architecture differs as well. The W7400 uses a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB capacity. The LX ULTRA uses a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth and 24 GB capacity. The LX ULTRA also runs its memory at 18 Gbps effective, versus 10.8 Gbps effective for the W7400.

The interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the LX ULTRA. The wider bus on the LX ULTRA doubles the available host link bandwidth, which matters for data transfers in and out of GPU memory. The W7400 compensates with lower power draw and no external power requirement, allowing operation in systems without auxiliary GPU power cables.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in installation flexibility. Its single-slot design, 168 mm length, 55 W TDP, and absence of power connectors make it suitable for compact chassis, low-power workstations, and systems with limited internal space. The suggested 250 W power supply requirement is far below the 550 W requirement of the LX ULTRA. The W7400 also wins in display connectivity standard, as its DisplayPort 2.1 outputs are newer than the DisplayPort 1.4a outputs on the LX ULTRA.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins in every raw performance category recorded. It has higher FP32 compute at 24.58 TFLOPS, higher FP16 compute at 49.15 TFLOPS, higher memory bandwidth at 432.0 GB/s, more memory capacity at 24 GB, higher pixel rate at 192.0 GPixel/s, and higher texture rate at 384.0 GTexel/s. It also has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides double the host link width of the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8.

For workloads that are compute-bound or memory-bound, the LX ULTRA is the clear choice from the data. Large datasets, high-resolution textures, and FP16-heavy inference or graphics workloads all favor the LX ULTRA because of its 3x memory capacity, 2.5x bandwidth, and 6.23x FP16 throughput. The 24 GB frame buffer accommodates larger scenes and models than the 8 GB W7400.

For workloads that are power-bound or space-bound, the W7400 is the clear choice. Systems with a 250 W power supply, no auxiliary PCIe power, or single-slot expansion constraints cannot accommodate the LX ULTRA. The W7400 also carries the newer DisplayPort 2.1 standard, which matters for displays requiring the latest output specification.

Neither card has recorded benchmark scores, so the win split is derived entirely from specification deltas. The LX ULTRA dominates on throughput metrics, and the W7400 dominates on power, size, and display output version. Users selecting between them should match the card to the physical and electrical limits of the target system.