Intel Arc A380E vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head measurements for the Intel Arc A380E and Lisuan Tech LX MAX. Both entries list zero benchmark scores, zero win counts, and an identical percentile placement of 50 against all GPUs. The absence of measured deltas means any comparison must rely on the hardware specifications and throughput figures recorded for each product.

What the data does show is a decisive theoretical performance gap in raw compute. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 4.096 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc A380E. That places the LX MAX at approximately six times the single-precision compute capacity of the Arc A380E. In FP16, the LX MAX reaches 49.15 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS for the Intel part, maintaining the same 6:1 ratio. These figures represent the largest measurable difference between the two cards.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The LX MAX records 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 192-bit interface, while the Arc A380E manages 186.0 GB/s over a 96-bit bus. The LX MAX therefore offers roughly 2.3 times the memory bandwidth of the smaller Intel card. Pixel throughput follows the same pattern: the LX MAX outputs 192.0 GPixel/s against 64.00 GPixel/s for the Arc A380E, a 3x advantage. Texture rate favors the LX MAX even more heavily, with 384.0 GTexel/s compared to 128.0 GTexel/s, again a 3x margin.

None of these differences are reflected in actual benchmark scores, as the database shows no entries for either product. The percentile field places both at 50, which in this dataset indicates median standing among all recorded GPUs, but with zero average benchmark scores, that percentile carries no measured performance evidence. The comparison therefore rests entirely on the recorded specifications and the compute rates derived from them.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has 6144 shading units. The Intel Arc A380E has 1024 shading units. The LX MAX provides six times the shading unit count.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX carries 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The Intel Arc A380E carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus. The LX MAX doubles the capacity and doubles the bus width.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s. The Intel Arc A380E has a pixel rate of 64.00 GPixel/s. The LX MAX delivers three times the pixel throughput.

Q: Are both cards built on the same process node?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Arc A380E and the Lisuan Tech LX MAX use a 6 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. The Intel chip is the DG2-128 with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. The transistor count and die size for the Lisuan Tech chip, the 7G106, are recorded as unknown.

Q: Which card supports more recent display outputs?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Intel card uses the newer DisplayPort standard.

Q: What are the power requirements recorded for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A380E has a TDP of 75 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has a TDP of 225 W, one 16-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc A380E uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip from the Alchemist generation, branded as Arc 3. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses an architecture called TrueGPU, built around the 7G106 chip from the 7G100 generation. No codename is recorded for either product.

Both cards share the same 6 nm TSMC process node, but the similarities end there. Intel records 7,200 million transistors on the DG2-128 die, with a die size of 157 mm². The resulting transistor density is 45.9M per mm². The Lisuan Tech chip has unknown transistor count and die size, so density cannot be calculated from the database.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Arc A380E contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The LX MAX contains 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The LX MAX has exactly six times the shading units, three times the TMUs, and three times the ROPs of the Intel part.

Ray tracing hardware is present on the Intel card, which records 8 RT cores. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no ray tracing core count listed. Neither card lists tensor core counts, so any AI acceleration capabilities are not represented in the database.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel Arc A380E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks are documented: the Arc A380E runs at 1937 MHz with 15.5 Gbps effective data rate, while the LX MAX runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

API support shows minor divergence. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2 and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel card supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Lisuan Tech card supports Vulkan 1.3. The newer Vulkan revision on the Intel side represents a small software advantage.

Production status separates the two clearly. The Intel Arc A380E is marked end-of-life, with a release date of 2024-03-31. Its recorded predecessor is Xe Graphics and its successor is Battlemage. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is marked active, with a release date of 2026-03-16. It has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

Several fields differ between the two entries. Memory size: 6 GB on the Arc A380E versus 12 GB on the LX MAX. Memory bus width: 96 bit versus 192 bit. Memory bandwidth: 186.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. Memory clock: 1937 MHz versus 2250 MHz, with effective rates of 15.5 Gbps versus 18 Gbps.

Compute rates scale with the hardware counts. FP32 performance: 4.096 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16 performance: 8.192 TFLOPS versus 49.15 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio. Pixel rate: 64.00 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 128.0 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s.

Shading units: 1024 versus 6144. TMUs: 64 versus 192. ROPs: 32 versus 96. The Arc A380E has 8 RT cores; the LX MAX has none recorded.

Power and physical dimensions diverge. The Arc A380E draws 75 W, occupies a single slot, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The LX MAX draws 225 W, occupies a dual slot, requires one 16-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The Intel card measures 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Lisuan card measures 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, and 48 mm in width. The LX MAX is shorter and narrower but more than twice as thick.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the Intel card, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the LX MAX. Display outputs differ: four DisplayPort 2.0 ports on the Arc A380E, four DisplayPort 1.4a ports on the LX MAX. Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3. Release dates: 2024-03-31 versus 2026-03-16. Production status: end-of-life versus active.

Transistor data is only available for the Intel chip. The DG2-128 contains 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die with a density of 45.9M per mm². The 7G106 chip in the LX MAX has unknown transistor count and die size. The Intel card lists a predecessor (Xe Graphics) and successor (Battlemage); the Lisuan card has neither.

Where Each One Wins

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX wins on every recorded compute and memory metric. It has six times the shading units, three times the TMUs, three times the ROPs, three times the pixel rate, three times the texture rate, six times the FP32 throughput, six times the FP16 throughput, double the memory capacity, double the bus width, and 2.3 times the memory bandwidth. It also carries a wider PCIe 4.0 x16 interface compared to the x8 link on the Intel card. For workloads driven by raw shading throughput, texture fill, pixel fill, or memory bandwidth, the LX MAX is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Intel Arc A380E wins on efficiency and physical footprint. Its 75 W TDP is one third of the 225 W drawn by the LX MAX, and its suggested PSU of 250 W is less than half of the 550 W suggested for the LX MAX. It needs no power connectors, while the LX MAX requires a 16-pin connector. The Intel card is single-slot and much thinner at 20 mm versus 48 mm, though it is longer and taller. For systems with tight power budgets, small chassis constraints, or no auxiliary power cabling, the Arc A380E is the only viable option between the two.

The Intel card also holds the edge in display output standard, offering DisplayPort 2.0 against DisplayPort 1.4a on the LX MAX. That newer standard supports higher bandwidth per port, which matters for high-refresh or high-resolution display configurations. The Arc A380E also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.3 on the LX MAX, a minor API revision advantage.

The LX MAX provides 12 GB of memory, which suits workloads with larger working sets than the 6 GB Arc A380E can hold. The 432.0 GB/s bandwidth also reduces memory-bound bottlenecks compared to the 186.0 GB/s of the Intel part. The LX MAX includes ray tracing hardware? No, the database does not list RT cores for the LX MAX, while the Arc A380E records 8 RT cores. That gives the Intel card a ray tracing capability the Lisuan entry does not document.

The Verdict

The data points to two different products for two different roles. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is the stronger GPU by every measured compute and memory specification in the database. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 12 GB memory capacity place it in a different performance class than the Intel Arc A380E. For applications that demand high shading throughput, large memory buffers, or rapid texture and pixel processing, the LX MAX is the appropriate selection.

The Intel Arc A380E suits constrained environments. Its 75 W TDP, no power connectors, single-slot profile, and 250 W suggested PSU make it appropriate for systems where power delivery and physical space are limited. It also provides DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and Vulkan 1.4 support, both newer than what the LX MAX offers. The 8 RT cores give it a documented ray tracing capability absent from the Lisuan entry.

The production status difference matters for procurement decisions. The Arc A380E is end-of-life, with a successor (Battlemage) already recorded. The LX MAX is active, released later, and has no successor listed. Long-term availability favors the Lisuan product.

Neither card has recorded benchmark scores, so the percentile of 50 for both reflects a neutral database position rather than measured performance. The theoretical advantages of the LX MAX are substantial: 6x shading units, 6x FP32, 6x FP16, 3x pixel rate, 3x texture rate, 2.3x bandwidth, and double the memory. Those margins are large enough that even accounting for architectural efficiency differences, the LX MAX should deliver meaningfully higher throughput in compute-heavy and memory-heavy workloads.

The Arc A380E does not win any performance specification in this comparison. Its advantages are operational: lower power, smaller thickness, no power connector requirement, newer display standard, newer Vulkan revision, documented ray tracing cores, and an end-of-life status that indicates a clear product cycle. The LX MAX wins on raw capability and active production status.

The choice depends entirely on the deployment context. A system with a 250 W PSU, no spare power connectors, and a single-slot expansion bay can only accommodate the Arc A380E. A system with a 550 W PSU, a 16-pin connector, and dual-slot clearance can use the LX MAX and gain six times the compute throughput, six times the memory bandwidth in raw terms, and double the memory capacity. The database does not contain measured evidence to contradict those specification-based conclusions.