Intel Arc A310E vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the Intel Arc A310E and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO is a study in extreme contrasts, with the data showing two products designed for completely different roles. The Intel Arc A310E is a 75 W, single-slot, entry-level card with 4 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, positioned as an end-of-life product from the Alchemist generation. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO is an active, dual-slot, 225 W card with 24 GB of memory, a 192-bit bus, and a 16-pin power connector, clearly aimed at a much higher performance tier.

The recorded data shows the Lisuan Tech LX PRO dominating in every computational and memory metric. It delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is 8 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the Intel Arc A310E. The memory bandwidth gap is equally stark: the LX PRO provides 432.0 GB/s versus 124.0 GB/s, a 3.5x advantage. The LX PRO also has 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units, compared to the A310E's 768, 32, and 16 respectively. The pixel rate of the LX PRO is 192.0 GPixel/s, exactly 6 times the A310E's 32.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s is exactly 6 times the A310E's 64.00 GTexel/s.

For any workload that depends on raw throughput, large memory capacity, or high bandwidth, the Lisuan Tech LX PRO is the only choice according to the data. The Intel Arc A310E, with its 4 GB memory and 64-bit bus, is suited for basic display output or computationally light tasks where its low 75 W power draw and single-slot footprint are advantages. The A310E requires a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the LX PRO requires 550 W. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, and both share a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, meaning the database records no overall performance tier separation despite the massive specification differences. The selection is straightforward: the LX PRO for compute-heavy or memory-intensive tasks, the A310E for minimal-power, space-constrained environments.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A310E is built on the DG2-128 chip using the Xe-HPG architecture, belonging to the Alchemist (Arc 3) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The LX PRO uses the 7G105 chip with the TrueGPU architecture from the 7G100 generation. It is also fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but the database does not record its transistor count, die size, or transistor density. The A310E has a base and boost clock of 2000 MHz, while the LX PRO has no base or boost clock recorded. The A310E's memory runs at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective), while the LX PRO's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

The A310E includes 6 ray tracing cores, while the LX PRO has no ray tracing core count recorded. Neither card lists tensor cores. The A310E supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A310E uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the LX PRO uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The A310E has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the LX PRO has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A310E is predecessor to Battlemage and succeeds Xe Graphics, while the LX PRO has no recorded predecessor or successor. The A310E has no power connectors, drawing entirely from the slot, while the LX PRO requires a single 16-pin connector.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX PRO has 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 3.5 times the 124.0 GB/s of the Intel Arc A310E.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw FP32 compute?

A: The LX PRO delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, exactly 8 times the 3.072 TFLOPS of the A310E.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The A310E has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested power supply, while the LX PRO has a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). They also both support OpenGL 4.6, but the A310E supports Vulkan 1.4 while the LX PRO supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The A310E is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide, and is single-slot. The LX PRO is 248 mm long, 118 mm high, and 48 mm wide, and is dual-slot.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity?

A: The LX PRO has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, compared to 4 GB of GDDR6 on the A310E.

Specification Differences

The database records the following differences between the two cards:

• Chip: DG2-128 (A310E) versus 7G105 (LX PRO)
• Architecture: Xe-HPG (A310E) versus TrueGPU (LX PRO)
• Generation: Alchemist (Arc 3) (A310E) versus 7G100 (LX PRO)
• Transistors: 7,200 million (A310E) versus unknown (LX PRO)
• Die Size: 157 mm² (A310E) versus unknown (LX PRO)
• Transistor Density: 45.9M / mm² (A310E) versus null (LX PRO)
• Base Clock: 2000 MHz (A310E) versus null (LX PRO)
• Boost Clock: 2000 MHz (A310E) versus null (LX PRO)
• Memory Clock: 1937 MHz 15.5 Gbps effective (A310E) versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective (LX PRO)
• Memory Size: 4 GB (A310E) versus 24 GB (LX PRO)
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit (A310E) versus 192 bit (LX PRO)
• Memory Bandwidth: 124.0 GB/s (A310E) versus 432.0 GB/s (LX PRO)
• Shading Units: 768 (A310E) versus 6144 (LX PRO)
• TMUs: 32 (A310E) versus 192 (LX PRO)
• ROPs: 16 (A310E) versus 96 (LX PRO)
• RT Cores: 6 (A310E) versus null (LX PRO)
• Pixel Rate: 32.00 GPixel/s (A310E) versus 192.0 GPixel/s (LX PRO)
• Texture Rate: 64.00 GTexel/s (A310E) versus 384.0 GTexel/s (LX PRO)
• FP32: 3.072 TFLOPS (A310E) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (LX PRO)
• FP16: 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) (A310E) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) (LX PRO)
• TDP: 75 W (A310E) versus 225 W (LX PRO)
• Slot Width: Single-slot (A310E) versus Dual-slot (LX PRO)
• Power Connectors: None (A310E) versus 1x 16-pin (LX PRO)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W (A310E) versus 550 W (LX PRO)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 (A310E) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (LX PRO)
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 (A310E) versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a (LX PRO)
• Vulkan: 1.4 (A310E) versus 1.3 (LX PRO)
• Dimensions: 168 mm 6.6 inches length, 69 mm 2.7 inches height, 20 mm 0.8 inches width (A310E) versus 248 mm 9.8 inches length, 118 mm 4.6 inches height, 48 mm 1.9 inches width (LX PRO)
• Production Status: End-of-life (A310E) versus Active (LX PRO)
• Release Date: 2024-03-31 (A310E) versus 2026-03-16 (LX PRO)
• Predecessor: Xe Graphics (A310E) versus null (LX PRO)
• Successor: Battlemage (A310E) versus null (LX PRO)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for this pair, so the comparison relies entirely on specification-derived performance metrics. The most decisive advantage for the Lisuan Tech LX PRO is in FP32 compute. Its 24.58 TFLOPS is exactly 8 times the A310E's 3.072 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures follow the same 8x ratio, with the LX PRO at 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 6.144 TFLOPS (2:1) for the A310E. These are the largest relative gaps in the recorded data.

The memory subsystem shows the next biggest separation. The LX PRO has 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, 3.5 times the A310E's 124.0 GB/s. The bus width difference is a factor of 3 (192 bit versus 64 bit), and the memory clock is higher on the LX PRO at 2250 MHz versus 1937 MHz. The capacity difference is a factor of 6 (24 GB versus 4 GB), which matters for workloads that exceed the A310E's small frame buffer.

The pixel and texture throughput figures both show a 6x advantage for the LX PRO. It achieves 192.0 GPixel/s versus 32.00 GPixel/s for the A310E, and 384.0 GTexel/s versus 64.00 GTexel/s. These ratios align exactly with the shading unit count difference: 6144 versus 768 is also an 8x gap, while the TMU count of 192 versus 32 is a 6x gap, and the ROP count of 96 versus 16 is a 6x gap. The internal scaling in the data is consistent, with the LX PRO's larger execution resources driving proportionally higher fill rates.

The A310E holds advantages in a few areas. Its base and boost clocks are both recorded at 2000 MHz, while the LX PRO has no clock data at all. The A310E also supports Vulkan 1.4, one version newer than the LX PRO's Vulkan 1.3. The A310E uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which is narrower than the LX PRO's PCIe 4.0 x16, but its power draw of 75 W is exactly one third of the LX PRO's 225 W. The A310E requires no external power connectors, while the LX PRO needs a 16-pin connector. The suggested power supply of 250 W for the A310E is less than half the 550 W required for the LX PRO. The A310E is also much smaller at 168 mm length and 20 mm width versus 248 mm and 48 mm for the LX PRO, and it is single-slot versus dual-slot.

The ray tracing comparison is incomplete because the LX PRO has no recorded RT core count, while the A310E has 6. The A310E is the only one of the two with a recorded predecessor (Xe Graphics) and successor (Battlemage), and it is marked end-of-life, while the LX PRO is active. The release dates differ by roughly two years, with the A310E dated 2024-03-31 and the LX PRO dated 2026-03-16. Both cards have no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, indicating the database has no measured performance data for either product.