AMD Radeon RX 7800M vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 7800M compare to the Lisuan Tech LX MAX in raw compute output?

A: The RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the LX MAX provides 24.58 TFLOPS. However, in FP16, the LX MAX doubles its throughput to 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), whereas the RX 7800M maintains a 1:1 ratio at 35.87 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the memory specifications for both cards?

A: Both GPUs use 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with identical 432.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2250 MHz memory clock (18 Gbps effective). There is no difference in memory configuration.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 7800M achieves 224.2 GPixel/s, which is 32.2 GPixel/s higher than the LX MAX's 192.0 GPixel/s. The RX 7800M also leads in texture rate at 560.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The RX 7800M has a TDP of 180 W and requires no power connectors, as it is an integrated graphics product. The LX MAX has a 225 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and requires a 550 W power supply.

Q: How do their benchmark standings compare?

A: The RX 7800M holds a 73rd percentile ranking among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 27,883. The LX MAX has no recorded benchmarks and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0.

Q: What API support differs between the two cards?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The RX 7800M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M and Lisuan Tech LX MAX are built on fundamentally different architectures. The RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. The LX MAX uses a 7G106 chip built on an architecture called TrueGPU, from the 7G100 generation.

Manufacturing processes differ. The RX 7800M is fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The LX MAX uses TSMC's 6 nm process, though its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Shader configuration diverges significantly. The RX 7800M contains 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The LX MAX has more shading units at 6,144, but fewer TMUs at 192, while matching the RX 7800M's 96 ROPs. The RX 7800M includes 60 ray tracing cores, whereas the LX MAX has no recorded RT core count.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The RX 7800M has specified base, boost, and game clocks at 1295 MHz, 2335 MHz, and 2145 MHz respectively. The LX MAX's database entry lists no clock speeds at all, making direct frequency comparison impossible. Memory clocks are identical at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

The RX 7800M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no power connectors and a 180 W TDP. The LX MAX is a dual-slot discrete card measuring 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, and 48 mm in width, requiring a single 16-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested power supply.

Physical form factor differences extend to display outputs. The RX 7800M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the LX MAX provides four DisplayPort 1.4a connections.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 7800M is the only one of these two GPUs with validated performance measurements. Its average benchmark score of 27,883 places it at the 73rd percentile among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% lower). The LX MAX has no benchmark scores recorded, leaving its real-world performance unverified.

For users prioritizing confirmed performance, the RX 7800M's FP32 throughput of 35.87 TFLOPS and higher pixel and texture rates make it the safer choice based on available data. Its RDNA 3.0 architecture with 60 RT cores also provides hardware ray tracing capability that the LX MAX lacks in its recorded specifications.

The LX MAX presents a different profile. Its 6,144 shading units exceed the RX 7800M's count, and its FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) surpasses the RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS. This may benefit workloads that leverage FP16 compute, though the absence of benchmark validation means these theoretical advantages remain unconfirmed.

Power considerations favor the RX 7800M at 180 W TDP versus 225 W for the LX MAX. The RX 7800M's integrated nature requires no external power connections, while the LX MAX demands a 16-pin connector and a 550 W power supply.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several recorded specifications:

• Process node: 5 nm (RX 7800M) versus 6 nm (LX MAX)
• Transistors: 28,100 million (RX 7800M) versus unknown (LX MAX)
• Die size: 346 mm² (RX 7800M) versus unknown (LX MAX)
• Transistor density: 81.2M / mm² (RX 7800M) versus not recorded
• Base clock: 1295 MHz (RX 7800M) versus not recorded
• Boost clock: 2335 MHz (RX 7800M) versus not recorded
• Game clock: 2145 MHz (RX 7800M) versus not recorded
• Shading units: 3,840 (RX 7800M) versus 6,144 (LX MAX)
• TMUs: 240 (RX 7800M) versus 192 (LX MAX)
• RT cores: 60 (RX 7800M) versus not recorded
• Pixel rate: 224.2 GPixel/s (RX 7800M) versus 192.0 GPixel/s (LX MAX)
• Texture rate: 560.4 GTexel/s (RX 7800M) versus 384.0 GTexel/s (LX MAX)
• FP32: 35.87 TFLOPS (RX 7800M) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (LX MAX)
• FP16: 35.87 TFLOPS 1:1 (RX 7800M) versus 49.15 TFLOPS 2:1 (LX MAX)
• TDP: 180 W (RX 7800M) versus 225 W (LX MAX)
• Slot width: IGP (RX 7800M) versus Dual-slot (LX MAX)
• Power connectors: None (RX 7800M) versus 1x 16-pin (LX MAX)
• Suggested PSU: not recorded (RX 7800M) versus 550 W (LX MAX)
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent (RX 7800M) versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a (LX MAX)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 (RX 7800M) versus 1.3 (LX MAX)
• Dimensions: not recorded (RX 7800M) versus 248 mm x 118 mm x 48 mm (LX MAX)
• Release date: 2024-09-10 (RX 7800M) versus 2026-03-16 (LX MAX)
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (RX 7800M) versus TrueGPU (LX MAX)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon RX 7800M and Lisuan Tech LX MAX. The LX MAX has zero recorded benchmark scores, meaning no comparative measurements exist for these two GPUs.

The RX 7800M's individual benchmark results provide context for its performance profile. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2,994. Geekbench results show 120,778 in OpenCL and 126,668 in Vulkan. Passmark scores include 17,613 in G3D, 9,342 in GPU compute, 892 in G2D, 176 in DirectX 11, 174 in DirectX 9, 99 in DirectX 10, and 89 in DirectX 12.

These results position the RX 7800M near several comparable GPUs. Its average score of 27,883 is 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839), 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973), 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020), and 0.8% behind the AMD FirePro S7150 (28,117). The tight clustering of these scores, all within 0.8% of each other, indicates that the RX 7800M operates in a consistent performance band.

Without any recorded benchmarks for the LX MAX, the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on theoretical specifications. The RX 7800M's FP32 advantage (35.87 versus 24.58 TFLOPS) and higher pixel rate (224.2 versus 192.0 GPixel/s) suggest it would lead in standard rasterization workloads. The LX MAX's FP16 advantage (49.15 versus 35.87 TFLOPS) could provide an edge in compute tasks that exploit reduced precision.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M holds clear advantages in several areas based on recorded data. Its FP32 performance of 35.87 TFLOPS is 11.29 TFLOPS higher than the LX MAX's 24.58 TFLOPS, indicating stronger general-purpose compute and standard game rendering throughput. The 560.4 GTexel/s texture rate versus 384.0 GTexel/s represents a 45.9% advantage in texture-heavy workloads. The 224.2 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the LX MAX by 32.2 GPixel/s, benefiting fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The RX 7800M's 60 ray tracing cores provide hardware RT capability that the LX MAX does not list. Its lower 180 W TDP and integrated packaging with no power connectors make it suitable for portable devices where power delivery and physical space are constrained. Vulkan 1.4 support is also newer than the LX MAX's Vulkan 1.3.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX wins on shading unit count with 6,144 units versus 3,840, a 60% higher count. This could benefit compute-heavy workloads that scale with shader processor availability. Its FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is 13.28 TFLOPS higher than the RX 7800M's FP16 output, suggesting a theoretical edge in FP16 compute applications such as certain AI inference or scientific workloads.

The LX MAX also offers a dual-slot form factor with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a more flexible option for multi-display desktop configurations. Its discrete card design with 16-pin power connector and 550 W suggested PSU indicates it is intended for full-size desktop systems, while the RX 7800M targets integrated mobile applications.

The 6 nm process node of the LX MAX is one generation behind the RX 7800M's 5 nm node, yet the LX MAX still manages a higher shader count. The absence of recorded clock speeds, thermal data, or benchmark results for the LX MAX means its actual performance cannot be verified against its theoretical specifications.