Intel Arc Graphics 32EU vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU and where does it sit in the market?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an integrated GPU based on the Xe-LPG architecture, built on Arrow Lake-S silicon using a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its benchmark score of 733 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, meaning it sits near the bottom of the performance distribution.

Q: What is the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA?

A: The LX ULTRA is a discrete dual-slot graphics card from Lisuan Tech, built on the 7G105 chip using the TrueGPU architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. It carries 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it is rated at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, which is the median performance point.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute output?

A: The LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 49.15 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1), while the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU provides 998.4 GFLOPS of FP32 and 1.997 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1). The LX ULTRA offers roughly 24.6 times the FP32 throughput on paper.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and a system shared bus. The LX ULTRA has a fixed 24 GB GDDR6 configuration with a 192-bit bus, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, and memory clocks at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3. The Intel integrated GPU has the newer Vulkan revision.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements?

A: The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an IGP with a 65 W TDP and no power connectors. The LX ULTRA draws 225 W, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, uses a single 16-pin connector, and measures 268 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an integrated graphics processor embedded in the Arrow Lake-S chip, using the Xe-LPG architecture. It is fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 73.3M per mm². The LX ULTRA is a standalone discrete card built around the 7G105 chip with the TrueGPU architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm TSMC process. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The Intel part has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The LX ULTRA scales this up dramatically with 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Neither part lists dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores in the database, so both rely on general-purpose shader execution for those workloads.

Memory architecture separates the two sharply. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU has no dedicated VRAM, using system shared memory with a system shared bus and system dependent bandwidth. The LX ULTRA carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit interface, delivering 432.0 GB/s. Memory clocks are listed at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer rate for the discrete card, while the integrated part's memory clock is tied to the host system.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel GPU runs at a 300 MHz base clock with a 1950 MHz boost. The LX ULTRA has no base or boost clocks recorded in the database, so its operating frequency profile is not available for comparison. The Intel part connects via Ring Bus, while the LX ULTRA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving the discrete card a dedicated high-bandwidth interface to the host.

Physical design and power delivery reflect their different roles. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an IGP with a 65 W TDP, no slot width, and no power connectors. The LX ULTRA is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, a single 16-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU rating of 550 W. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the Intel part, whereas the LX ULTRA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two products, and the win counts for both are zero. However, the available single-benchmark data and the percentile positions provide a basis for comparison.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU scores 733. The LX ULTRA has no recorded benchmark score in the database, so a direct numerical comparison on the same test is not possible. The Intel part's score places it at the 3rd percentile of all GPUs, which indicates performance in the lowest tier of the distribution. The LX ULTRA is positioned at the 50th percentile, the median of all GPUs, which suggests a fundamentally different performance class despite the absence of a specific score.

The Intel part's nearest rivals in the database are informative. It matches the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and Intel Arc Graphics 64EU at 733 points with a 0% delta, meaning all three Intel integrated variants land on the same score. The AMD Radeon HD 6470M scores 723, which is 1.4% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M scores 751, which is 2.4% higher. These deltas are small, confirming that the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU operates in a narrow performance band alongside older entry-level discrete parts.

The LX ULTRA has no nearest rivals listed and no average benchmark score, so its relative position cannot be quantified against specific competitors. The 50th percentile ranking is the only performance anchor available.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Arc Graphics 32EU | Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Arrow Lake-S | 7G105 |

| Architecture | Xe-LPG | TrueGPU |

| Generation | Arc Graphics-M (Arrow Lake) | 7G100 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1950 MHz | not recorded |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 432.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 256 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 16 | 192 |

| ROPs | 8 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 15.60 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.20 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 998.4 GFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1.997 TFLOPS (2:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | none | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | none | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | not recorded | 268 mm x 112 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2024-10-23 | 2026-03-16 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU wins in efficiency and integration. It operates at 65 W, requires no discrete power connector, and occupies no expansion slot since it is an IGP. The 3 nm process node gives it a manufacturing advantage in density, with 73.3M transistors per mm². It also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API revision than the LX ULTRA's Vulkan 1.3. For a system that needs basic graphics output without additional power cabling or chassis space, the Intel part is the only viable choice between these two.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins decisively in raw performance capability. Its 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs produce a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s, compared to 15.60 GPixel/s and 31.20 GTexel/s for the Intel part. The FP32 throughput of 24.58 TFLOPS dwarfs the Intel part's 998.4 GFLOPS. The 24 GB GDDR6 memory with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth provides a dedicated pool that the Intel part cannot access, since it relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The LX ULTRA also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth by a wide margin. The 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth are fixed and consistent, whereas the Intel IGP's bandwidth varies with the host system's memory configuration. The discrete card's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs give it a clear advantage for multi-monitor setups, while the Intel part's outputs depend entirely on the motherboard.

The 50th percentile ranking for the LX ULTRA versus the 3rd percentile for the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is the clearest summary of where each product wins. The LX ULTRA sits at the median of all GPUs, while the Intel part sits near the bottom. Every compute and memory metric in the database points the same direction.

The Verdict

The database describes two products with almost no overlap in intended use. The Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is an integrated solution for Arrow Lake-S systems. Its 733 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 3rd percentile placement, and 65 W TDP define it as a basic graphics solution for everyday display output and light workloads. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Arc Graphics 24EU and 64EU, all score identically at 733, and the AMD Radeon HD 6470M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M are within a few percentage points. This indicates a tightly clustered low-performance tier.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is a different class of hardware entirely. With 24 GB of GDDR6, 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and a 50th percentile ranking, it is positioned for demanding workloads that require substantial memory bandwidth and shader throughput. The 225 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and 16-pin power connector confirm it is a discrete card built for performance, not integration.

For a builder assembling a compact or low-power system where the CPU's integrated graphics are sufficient, the Intel Arc Graphics 32EU is the appropriate choice. It uses no extra power, needs no expansion slot, and its Vulkan 1.4 support is current. For any workload involving modern 3D rendering, heavy texture work, or large datasets that fit in 24 GB of VRAM, the LX ULTRA is the only option that can deliver the required throughput. The performance gap between 998.4 GFLOPS and 24.58 TFLOPS is not a marginal difference; it is a fundamental separation in capability. The choice between these two is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of whether the system needs integrated convenience or discrete performance.