Intel Arc Graphics 32EU vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO occupy opposite extremes of the graphics hardware spectrum. The Arc 32EU is an integrated processor graphics solution built for efficiency within a desktop CPU package, while the LX PRO is a large, discrete, dual-slot add-in board with dedicated memory and a high power draw. The recorded data shows they share almost nothing in terms of physical design, memory architecture, or performance class, yet both are classified as active products in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO. The head-to-head results field is empty, and the win counters show zero victories for either side. This absence of direct comparison data means any analysis must rely on the individual benchmark entries and the architectural specifications recorded for each part.

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has one recorded benchmark result: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733. This score places the integrated GPU at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning roughly 97% of recorded graphics processors score higher. The nearest rivals for this score are revealing. The Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU both average exactly 733, a 0% delta, indicating that within the Arc Graphics-M family, the 32EU configuration delivers the same Steel Nomad result as both the smaller and larger variants. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% lower than the Arc 32EU, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% higher. These deltas are small, suggesting the Arc 32EU sits in a very tight performance cluster around the 700 to 750 mark for this particular workload.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO has no benchmark scores recorded in the database. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and its nearest rivals list is empty. The percentile field shows 50, which is the median position, but without any actual test results, this percentile cannot be interpreted as a measured outcome. The absence of data does not indicate performance; it simply means no scores have been entered for this product. The LX PRO specifications, however, point to a vastly higher theoretical throughput, with an FP32 rating of 24.58 TFLOPS compared to the Arc 32EU's 998.4 GFLOPS. That is a factor of roughly 24.6 difference in raw floating-point capability, though no benchmark confirms how this translates into real-world frame rates.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU show a benchmark score while the Lisuan Tech LX PRO shows none?

A: The database records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733 for the Arc 32EU. The LX PRO entry has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals, meaning no test results have been submitted or recorded for that product.

Q: What does the 3rd percentile ranking for the Arc 32EU mean?

A: The Arc 32EU sits at the 3rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, which indicates that its single recorded score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it below the vast majority of other graphics processors. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M, scores 751, which is 2.4% higher, and the AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% lower.

Q: How do the two products compare in memory capacity?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX PRO uses 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory, with its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the difference in shading unit count?

A: The LX PRO has 6144 shading units, while the Arc 32EU has 256 shading units. The LX PRO also has 192 texture mapping units and 96 render output units, compared to 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the Arc 32EU.

Q: Which product has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The LX PRO records a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the Arc 32EU records 15.60 GPixel/s. The LX PRO also records a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s for the Arc 32EU.

Q: What API levels does each product support?

A: Both products support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Arc 32EU supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX PRO supports Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The two products are built on different architectures from different generations. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses the Xe-LPG architecture and belongs to the Arc Graphics-M generation for Arrow Lake. The chip is designated Arrow Lake-S, and the process node is 3 nm, fabricated by TSMC. The integrated GPU contains 17,800 million transistors on a die size of 243 mm², giving a transistor density of 73.3 million per square millimeter. The LX PRO uses an architecture named TrueGPU, belongs to the 7G100 generation, and is built on a 6 nm TSMC process. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, and no transistor density is recorded.

The compute configurations differ sharply. The Arc 32EU has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The LX PRO has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Neither product lists ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database. The FP32 throughput for the Arc 32EU is 998.4 GFLOPS, while the LX PRO records 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16 rates are 1.997 TFLOPS for the Arc 32EU and 49.15 TFLOPS for the LX PRO, both listed with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: 15.60 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s for the Arc 32EU, versus 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s for the LX PRO.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The Arc 32EU relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, reflecting its integrated nature. The LX PRO carries 24 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit interface, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz and 18 Gbps effective speed, delivering 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: the Arc 32EU uses a Ring Bus, while the LX PRO uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show differences in nearly every measurable category. The process node differs, with the Arc 32EU at 3 nm and the LX PRO at 6 nm, both from TSMC. The Arc 32EU has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm²; the LX PRO lists both as unknown. The base clock for the Arc 32EU is 300 MHz with a boost of 1950 MHz, while the LX PRO has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clock is system shared for the Arc 32EU and 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for the LX PRO.

Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ. The Arc 32EU uses system shared memory with a system dependent bus and bandwidth, while the LX PRO uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are all higher on the LX PRO by factors of 24, 12, and 12 respectively. Pixel rate is 15.60 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 31.20 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 998.4 GFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 1.997 TFLOPS versus 49.15 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge completely. The Arc 32EU has a TDP of 65 W and is an integrated graphics processor with an IGP slot width and no power connectors. The LX PRO has a TDP of 225 W, a dual-slot width, a single 16-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 550 W. The LX PRO measures 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, and 48 mm in width, while the Arc 32EU has no dimensions listed. Display outputs for the Arc 32EU are motherboard dependent, while the LX PRO provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Vulkan version differs as well: 1.4 for the Arc 32EU and 1.3 for the LX PRO. Release dates are 2024-10-23 for the Arc 32EU and 2026-03-16 for the LX PRO.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products in any practical sense. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an integrated solution with a single recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 733, placing it at the 3rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are other low-end or older parts, with the closest match being the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU at identical scores, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M 2.4% ahead. The LX PRO has no benchmark results, so its percentile of 50 is not a measured performance value. What the database does show is a massive specification gap: 24 GB of GDDR6 versus shared memory, 6144 shading units versus 256, 24.58 TFLOPS versus 998.4 GFLOPS, and a 225 W TDP versus 65 W. Anyone interpreting this data should recognize that the LX PRO is designed for workloads requiring substantial dedicated memory and compute throughput, while the Arc 32EU is built for basic graphics output within a low-power integrated context.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in efficiency and integration. Its 65 W TDP, IGP slot width, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for systems where a separate graphics card is not an option. It also holds an advantage in Vulkan API support, listing version 1.4 compared to the LX PRO's 1.3. The Arc 32EU has a recorded benchmark, which is more than the LX PRO can claim in the database, and its transistor count and die size are documented, providing concrete manufacturing data.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO wins in raw specification comparisons across the board. It offers 24 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput of 24.58 TFLOPS is roughly 24.6 times the Arc 32EU's 998.4 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s versus 15.60 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s. The LX PRO also provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface with a dual-slot cooler and a 16-pin power connector. The 50th percentile placement, while unverified by benchmarks, is far above the Arc 32EU's 3rd percentile, though this should be treated cautiously given the empty test results. The LX PRO targets high-throughput, memory-intensive scenarios, while the Arc 32EU addresses low-power integrated needs.