Intel Arc A380M vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two graphics cards compared in this analysis?

A: The Intel Arc A380M, a mobile MXM module based on the DG2-128 chip with the Xe-HPG architecture, and the Lisuan Tech LX MAX, a dual-slot desktop card based on the 7G106 chip with the TrueGPU architecture.

Q: Which card has more memory and memory bandwidth?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Arc A380M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

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

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc A380M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS. The LX MAX is roughly six times higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A380M has a TDP of 35 W and uses an MXM module slot. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has a TDP of 225 W, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and the database lists a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card supports a higher version of Vulkan?

A: The Intel Arc A380M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Lisuan Tech LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of the Lisuan Tech LX MAX?

A: The LX MAX measures 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, and 48 mm in width, occupying a dual-slot form factor.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A380M is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the Alchemist generation for Arc 3 Mobile, using the DG2-128 chip. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.9M per mm². The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G106 chip from the 7G100 generation. It is also fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, though the database records no transistor count, die size, or density figures for this chip.

The Intel card contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX contains 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The database does not list ray tracing cores for the LX MAX. The LX MAX scales every functional unit count to six times the Arc A380M: 6144 vs 1024 shading units, 192 vs 64 TMUs, and 96 vs 32 ROPs. This structural scaling is consistent across the board, indicating a fundamentally larger execution resource pool in the LX MAX.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Intel Arc A380M has a base clock of 1550 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory running at 1937 MHz or 15.5 Gbps effective. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The absence of core clock data for the LX MAX means comparisons on clock speed alone are not possible from the database.

The interface and form factor diverge sharply. The Arc A380M is an MXM-A (3.1) module, designed for portable devices with display outputs that are device dependent. The LX MAX is a dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The LX MAX is a full desktop expansion card, while the Arc A380M is a swappable mobile module.

API support is nearly identical. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Arc A380M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3. This gives the Intel card a minor API version advantage, though both are current-generation compatible.

Power delivery is a major architectural differentiator. The Arc A380M is rated at 35 W TDP with no power connector, drawing power through the MXM slot. The LX MAX is rated at 225 W TDP, uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, and the database suggests a 550 W PSU. The LX MAX consumes more than six times the power of the Arc A380M, which aligns with its much larger compute resource count.

The Verdict

The database shows two cards aimed at entirely different segments. The Intel Arc A380M is a 35 W MXM module for portable systems, while the Lisuan Tech LX MAX is a 225 W dual-slot desktop card with a 16-pin connector and a suggested 550 W PSU. The LX MAX is the clear performance leader in every measured compute and memory metric.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the Arc A380M, a 6x advantage. Memory bandwidth sits at 432.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s, a 2.3x advantage. Memory capacity is 12 GB versus 6 GB, a 2x advantage. The LX MAX also leads in pixel rate (192.0 GPixel/s vs 64.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s vs 128.0 GTexel/s). In every category where both cards have recorded data, the LX MAX wins by a substantial margin.

The Intel Arc A380M wins on power efficiency and form factor suitability. At 35 W TDP, it is designed for MXM-A (3.1) portable device slots. The LX MAX at 225 W TDP cannot fit in such systems. The Arc A380M also supports Vulkan 1.4, one version newer than the LX MAX's Vulkan 1.3.

For users with a portable system accepting MXM modules, the Arc A380M is the only viable choice. For desktop users with adequate power delivery, the LX MAX is the performance pick. The data does not place these cards in direct competition; they serve different physical and thermal envelopes.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every recorded specification. The Arc A380M uses the DG2-128 chip with Xe-HPG architecture, while the LX MAX uses the 7G106 chip with TrueGPU architecture. Both use a 6 nm TSMC process, but the Arc A380M has a recorded 7,200 million transistors and 157 mm² die, while the LX MAX has no transistor or die size data.

Memory specifications differ substantially. The Arc A380M has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX has 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective) for the Arc, versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the LX MAX.

Compute resources differ by a factor of six. The Arc A380M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The LX MAX has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Arc has 8 ray tracing cores; the LX MAX has no recorded RT core count.

Performance rates scale accordingly. Pixel rate is 64.00 GPixel/s for the Arc versus 192.0 GPixel/s for the LX MAX. Texture rate is 128.0 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 4.096 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16 is 8.192 TFLOPS versus 49.15 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical design differ completely. The Arc is 35 W TDP, MXM-A (3.1) interface, no power connector, and device-dependent display outputs. The LX MAX is 225 W TDP, dual-slot, PCIe 4.0 x16, 1x 16-pin power connector, 550 W suggested PSU, and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The LX MAX measures 248 mm by 118 mm by 48 mm.

API support differs only in Vulkan version: 1.4 for the Arc, 1.3 for the LX MAX. Both share DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. Release dates differ, with the Arc released on 2023-01-23 and the LX MAX on 2026-03-16. Both are marked Active in production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct benchmark scores for either card, but the specification-derived performance rates provide clear comparisons. The most decisive gap is in FP32 compute. The LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS, exactly six times the 4.096 TFLOPS of the Arc A380M. This ratio holds across shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, confirming a consistent sixfold execution resource advantage.

Memory bandwidth shows a different ratio. The LX MAX delivers 432.0 GB/s, which is 2.3 times the 186.0 GB/s of the Arc A380M. The bandwidth advantage is smaller than the compute advantage, meaning the LX MAX is less memory-bound relative to its compute capacity than the Arc A380M. The LX MAX's 192-bit bus versus the Arc's 96-bit bus doubles the bus width, and the higher memory clock (18 Gbps effective vs 15.5 Gbps) adds further headroom.

Pixel throughput favors the LX MAX at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, a 3x advantage. Texture throughput favors the LX MAX at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, also a 3x advantage. These rates scale with the ROP and TMU counts, respectively.

FP16 performance follows the same sixfold pattern: 49.15 TFLOPS for the LX MAX versus 8.192 TFLOPS for the Arc A380M. Both cards implement FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, indicating similar mixed-precision strategies.

The power efficiency comparison is stark. The Arc A380M achieves 4.096 TFLOPS at 35 W, while the LX MAX achieves 24.58 TFLOPS at 225 W. The Arc delivers roughly 0.117 TFLOPS per watt, while the LX MAX delivers roughly 0.109 TFLOPS per watt. The Arc is slightly more efficient per watt, though the LX MAX still delivers six times the absolute performance at a lower per-watt efficiency.

The Arc's Vulkan 1.4 support is a small but real advantage over the LX MAX's Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions, so API-level differences are limited to Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX wins decisively in raw performance categories. For FP32 compute, it is six times faster than the Arc A380M. For memory bandwidth, it is 2.3 times faster. For pixel rate and texture rate, it is three times faster. For memory capacity, it offers twice the VRAM. Any workload that depends on compute throughput, large textures, high resolutions, or substantial VRAM usage will favor the LX MAX.

The LX MAX is also the only card with a standardized desktop display output configuration. Its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs allow direct multi-monitor setups, while the Arc A380M has display outputs that depend on the host portable device. For desktop workstations or gaming rigs, the LX MAX's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and dual-slot cooler are built for a conventional chassis.

The Intel Arc A380M wins in power-constrained and mobile scenarios. Its 35 W TDP allows operation in MXM-A (3.1) slots found in portable systems, where a 225 W card cannot function. The Arc also requires no auxiliary power connector, simplifying installation in systems that lack 16-pin power delivery. For portable device upgrades, the Arc is the only option presented in this comparison.

The Arc wins on Vulkan API version support. Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 means the Arc is one revision ahead for applications that target the latest Vulkan features. Both cards share DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6, so this is a narrow but real advantage.

The Arc also wins on physical efficiency. At 35 W versus 225 W, it consumes far less power and produces less heat. The database records no cooler specifications, but the TDP difference alone indicates the Arc is suited to thin, low-thermal-budget systems while the LX MAX requires robust desktop cooling.

The data does not support a single winner across all criteria. The LX MAX is the performance champion by every measured compute and memory metric. The Arc A380M is the efficiency and portability champion, with a lower TDP, no power connector, and MXM form factor. Selection depends entirely on the target system's power delivery, physical slot, and performance requirements.