AMD Radeon PRO W7900D vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two very different interpretations of a workstation GPU. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is a 5 nm part built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Navi 31 chip with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses a 6 nm process with the 7G106 chip under the TrueGPU architecture, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. Both cards sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores, so the comparison relies entirely on their specified hardware capabilities.

The AMD card offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384 bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Lisuan card has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus, with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 2x difference in memory capacity and a 2x difference in bandwidth, which directly impacts large dataset handling and multi-display workloads. The AMD card also doubles the pixel rate at 414.0 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 827.9 GTexel/s compared to 384.0 GTexel/s. These are not marginal gaps; they represent fundamentally different performance tiers for rasterization-heavy tasks.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce this split. The W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS, while the LX MAX provides 24.58 TFLOPS. However, the Lisuan card has a notable FP16 advantage in ratio terms: it reaches 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 rate, whereas the AMD card matches its FP32 at 52.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. For workloads that can use FP16, the Lisuan card comes closer to the AMD card's raw throughput, but the AMD card still leads in absolute FP16 numbers.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is the choice for memory-bound, high-resolution, or multi-stream workloads where 48 GB capacity and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth are decisive. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is the choice for FP16-centric compute tasks or for installations where its dual-slot width, 225 W TDP, and single 16-pin connector are preferable, provided the workload fits within 12 GB of memory and 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Lisuan card also uses DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD card supports DisplayPort 2.1, which matters for display bandwidth and future monitor support.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384 bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192 bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card provides 4x the capacity and 2x the bandwidth.

Q: How do their FP32 and FP16 compute performances compare?

A: The AMD card delivers 52.99 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same 52.99 TFLOPS for FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Lisuan card delivers 24.58 TFLOPS for FP32 and 49.15 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The AMD card is ahead in FP32 by over 2.15x, but the Lisuan card narrows the FP16 gap to roughly 1.08x.

Q: What are the physical size and power differences?

A: The AMD card is 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 51 mm wide, with a triple-slot width, 295 W TDP, and 2x 8-pin power connectors. The Lisuan card is 248 mm long, 118 mm tall, and 48 mm wide, with a dual-slot width, 225 W TDP, and a single 16-pin connector.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D supports 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX supports 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. DisplayPort 2.1 offers higher bandwidth per output compared to 1.4a, though the Lisuan card provides more physical display outputs.

Q: Are there differences in the API support?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Lisuan card supports Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card also includes 96 RT cores; the Lisuan card lists none.

Q: What are the process node and transistor details?

A: The AMD card uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a density of 109.1M transistors per mm². The Lisuan card uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, but its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge sharply at the architectural level. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip, built on RDNA 3.0 with the codename Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses the 7G106 chip under the TrueGPU architecture, part of the 7G100 generation, with no codename listed.

The process node differs: AMD is on 5 nm, while Lisuan uses 6 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. The AMD card reports 57,700 million transistors and a 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The Lisuan card gives no transistor count or die size, so density cannot be computed from the data.

The compute resources show a complex pattern. Both cards list 6144 shading units, which is an identical count. However, the AMD card has 384 texture mapping units and 192 ROPs, while the Lisuan card has 192 TMUs and 96 ROPs. This means the AMD card has exactly 2x the TMUs and 2x the ROPs. The AMD card also includes 96 RT cores, while the Lisuan card lists none, indicating no dedicated ray tracing hardware in the recorded specifications.

Memory architecture differences are substantial. The AMD card uses a 384 bit bus with 48 GB, while the Lisuan card uses a 192 bit bus with 12 GB. Both use GDDR6 memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, but the bus width difference produces the 2x bandwidth gap. The AMD card achieves 864.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s.

The FP16 implementation differs in ratio. The AMD card lists FP16 at 52.99 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput. The Lisuan card lists FP16 at 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is double its FP32 rate. This suggests different execution paths for reduced-precision math.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows clear divergences in every major category except shading units, memory type, and memory clock. Both cards use GDDR6 and run the memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. Both list 6144 shading units. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 and have a production status of Active.

Beyond those points, the cards differ as follows:

• Process node: AMD is 5 nm; Lisuan is 6 nm.
• Transistors: AMD has 57,700 million; Lisuan is unknown.
• Die size: AMD is 529 mm²; Lisuan is unknown.
• Clocks: AMD has a base of 1327 MHz and a boost of 2156 MHz; Lisuan lists no base or boost clock.
• Memory size: AMD is 48 GB; Lisuan is 12 GB.
• Bus width: AMD is 384 bit; Lisuan is 192 bit.
• Bandwidth: AMD is 864.0 GB/s; Lisuan is 432.0 GB/s.
• TMUs: AMD has 384; Lisuan has 192.
• ROPs: AMD has 192; Lisuan has 96.
• RT cores: AMD has 96; Lisuan has none listed.
• Pixel rate: AMD is 414.0 GPixel/s; Lisuan is 192.0 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: AMD is 827.9 GTexel/s; Lisuan is 384.0 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD is 52.99 TFLOPS; Lisuan is 24.58 TFLOPS.
• FP16: AMD is 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1); Lisuan is 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: AMD is 295 W; Lisuan is 225 W.
• Slot width: AMD is triple-slot; Lisuan is dual-slot.
• Power connectors: AMD uses 2x 8-pin; Lisuan uses 1x 16-pin.
• Suggested PSU: AMD is 600 W; Lisuan is 550 W.
• Dimensions: AMD is 280 mm x 110 mm x 51 mm; Lisuan is 248 mm x 118 mm x 48 mm.
• Display outputs: AMD has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1; Lisuan has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• Vulkan support: AMD is 1.4; Lisuan is 1.3.
• Release date: AMD is 2025-09-24; Lisuan is 2026-03-16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either card, so the head-to-head comparison is derived from the specified compute rates, memory throughput, and rasterization capabilities. The data shows the AMD card wins decisively in several categories.

The largest gap is in memory capacity. The AMD card provides 48 GB versus 12 GB, a 4x advantage. This is critical for workloads that need to keep large models, high-resolution textures, or multiple render targets resident in VRAM. The Lisuan card would need to spill to system memory or use smaller batch sizes.

Bandwidth follows with a 2x advantage. The AMD card moves 864.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. This directly affects texture streaming, framebuffer writes, and any kernel that iterates over large arrays. The FP32 compute also favors AMD substantially: 52.99 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, a 2.16x difference. For single-precision compute, the AMD card is clearly ahead.

The pixel rate gap is also 2.16x: 414.0 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. This matters for fill-rate-bound rendering, such as high-resolution compositing or heavy fragment shaders. The texture rate gap is larger in absolute terms, 827.9 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, also a 2.16x difference, which affects filtered texture lookups.

The Lisuan card's strongest recorded point is FP16 compute. Its 49.15 TFLOPS is within 7.3% of the AMD card's 52.99 TFLOPS. In FP16-heavy workloads, the Lisuan card is nearly competitive, despite its lower FP32 rate. The 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests the Lisuan architecture is optimized for reduced precision, while the AMD card runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

The Lisuan card also has advantages in physical properties. It has a lower TDP at 225 W versus 295 W, and a smaller footprint in length (248 mm versus 280 mm) and width (48 mm versus 51 mm). It uses a dual-slot design versus triple-slot, and a single 16-pin connector versus 2x 8-pin. These are meaningful for compact workstations or systems with limited PSU headroom.

Display output differences matter for multi-monitor setups. The Lisuan card has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD card has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD card supports a newer DisplayPort standard, but the Lisuan card offers one more physical output for driving additional displays simultaneously.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D wins in scenarios that demand high memory capacity, high bandwidth, or high FP32 throughput. The 48 GB memory pool and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large-scale GPU computing, including scientific simulations, machine learning inference with large models, and high-resolution video editing with multiple streams. The 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 rate and 414.0 GPixel/s pixel rate support heavy rasterization workloads, such as real-time 3D rendering at high resolutions or complex visual effects compositing. The 96 RT cores give it a dedicated ray tracing path, which the Lisuan card lacks entirely. The DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support higher per-port bandwidth for high-refresh-rate displays or very high resolutions.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX wins in scenarios that prioritize FP16 compute efficiency, physical size, or power consumption. Its 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 rate, achieved at a 2:1 ratio, brings it close to the AMD card's FP16 performance despite the FP32 deficit. This makes it viable for workloads that use FP16 arithmetic, such as certain deep learning training passes or image processing pipelines. The 225 W TDP and dual-slot width allow installation in smaller chassis or systems with lower PSU ratings. The single 16-pin connector simplifies cabling compared to the AMD card's 2x 8-pin requirement. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide more physical display connections for multi-monitor arrays, even though each port has lower bandwidth than DisplayPort 2.1.

The data does not show a universal winner. The AMD card dominates in memory, bandwidth, FP32, rasterization rates, and ray tracing. The Lisuan card holds a narrow edge in FP16 compute, a clear edge in power draw and form factor, and a one-output advantage in display connectivity. The choice depends on whether the workload is memory-bound and FP32-heavy or FP16-heavy and space-constrained. The absence of recorded benchmark scores and the identical 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs mean neither card has an empirical performance advantage in the database; the comparison rests entirely on the specified hardware capabilities.