Intel Arc Pro A60M vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include any head-to-head benchmark results between the Intel Arc Pro A60M and the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA. Both entries show an empty benchmark array, meaning no comparative scores, frame rates, or compute measurements are available in the database. The wins count for each product is zero, and the average benchmark score for both is zero as well.

What can be compared directly are the raw compute specifications, which reveal a substantial gap in theoretical performance. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M delivers 5.325 TFLOPS. This places the LX ULTRA approximately 4.6 times higher in raw single-precision throughput. Similarly, FP16 performance shows the LX ULTRA at 49.15 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS for the Intel part, again a roughly 4.6 times advantage.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same trend. The LX ULTRA outputs 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M produces 83.20 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s. The LX ULTRA is about 2.3 times faster in pixel fill and 2.3 times faster in texture fill. These figures indicate that in any workload limited by shading, texture sampling, or rasterization throughput, the LX ULTRA holds a commanding lead.

Memory bandwidth also favors the LX ULTRA. It offers 432.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus, compared to 256.0 GB/s on a 128-bit bus for the Intel Arc Pro A60M. The LX ULTRA provides roughly 1.7 times the bandwidth. Its memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, while the Intel part runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The LX ULTRA also ships with 24 GB of GDDR6, triple the 8 GB on the Intel Arc Pro A60M.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M does hold advantages in certain feature-level areas. It includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, whereas the LX ULTRA lists no ray tracing core count. The Intel GPU supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel Arc Pro A60M also has a much lower power draw at 95 W versus 225 W for the LX ULTRA, which carries implications for thermal management and system integration.

Where Each One Wins

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins decisively in raw compute and memory capacity scenarios. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 throughput position it for heavy compute tasks such as large-scale rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference. The 24 GB memory capacity and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth allow it to hold larger datasets and textures in local VRAM, reducing the need for frequent transfers over the PCIe 4.0 x16 bus. The dual-slot form factor, 268 mm length, and 550 W suggested PSU indicate it is designed as a standalone add-in card for a desktop chassis with generous cooling and power headroom.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M wins in efficiency and integration scenarios. Its 95 W TDP and IGP slot width mean it can be embedded into portable or compact systems where space and thermal budgets are constrained. The 6 nm process node from TSMC is shared by both GPUs, but the Intel part achieves its performance at a fraction of the power. The presence of 16 ray tracing cores gives it a feature the LX ULTRA does not list, making it the only one of the two with explicit hardware ray tracing support. For workloads that require Vulkan 1.4 features, the Intel part is also the only option, as the LX ULTRA is limited to Vulkan 1.3.

For gaming and graphics APIs, both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate and OpenGL 4.6, so compatibility is equal on those fronts. The LX ULTRA has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, suggesting it would fill frames faster in rasterized workloads. The Intel Arc Pro A60M, with its lower memory bandwidth and smaller frame buffer, would likely struggle with high-resolution textures or large scene complexity, though the absence of benchmark data prevents confirmation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-256 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation within the Pro-Series Mobile lineup. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, and reaches a transistor density of 42.8M per mm². The LX ULTRA uses a "TrueGPU" architecture with the 7G105 chip from the 7G100 generation. It is also fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

Shader configuration differs substantially. The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The LX ULTRA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This threefold increase in shading units explains the large FP32 throughput gap, as the LX ULTRA has more execution resources operating at unspecified clock speeds. The Intel part has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The LX ULTRA does not list base or boost clocks in the database, so clock frequency cannot be compared directly.

Memory architecture also differs. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses an 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer on a 128-bit interface with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA uses a 24 GB GDDR6 frame buffer on a 192-bit interface with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use GDDR6, but the LX ULTRA has a wider bus and more capacity. The Intel part includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the LX ULTRA lists no ray tracing hardware. Neither product lists tensor cores, so AI acceleration hardware is absent from both according to the database.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The Intel Arc Pro A60M is rated at 95 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width, meaning it is intended to be soldered or integrated into a board rather than installed as a discrete card. The LX ULTRA is rated at 225 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W. Its dimensions are 268 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Intel card has no listed dimensions or power connectors, consistent with its IGP classification. Display outputs on the Intel part are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the LX ULTRA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

The LX ULTRA has a later release date of 2026-03-16, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M was released on 2023-06-05. Both are listed as Active in production status. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, so host connectivity is identical.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to 5.325 TFLOPS for the Intel Arc Pro A60M. The LX ULTRA is roughly 4.6 times faster in this metric.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either GPU support hardware ray tracing?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA does not list a ray tracing core count in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60M has a 95 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has a 225 W TDP, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel Arc Pro A60M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc Pro A60M uses the DG2-256 chip from the Xe-HPG architecture, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip from the TrueGPU architecture.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different products serving distinct roles. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is the clear choice for workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 24 GB frame buffer, and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale rendering, scientific compute, or any task where GPU memory and raw shader throughput are the primary bottlenecks. The dual-slot cooler, 16-pin power connector, and 550 W suggested PSU indicate it is meant for a desktop system with adequate power delivery and airflow.

The Intel Arc Pro A60M is the more restrained option. Its 95 W TDP and IGP form factor make it appropriate for compact or mobile systems where the GPU must share the board with other components. Its 5.325 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 8 GB memory are modest by comparison, but it offers features the LX ULTRA lacks, including 16 ray tracing cores and Vulkan 1.4 support. For applications that depend on hardware ray tracing or the latest Vulkan extensions, the Intel part is the only one of the two that qualifies.

Neither product has benchmark scores in the database, so real-world performance cannot be verified. The specification comparison, however, is unambiguous: the LX ULTRA dominates in raw compute, fill rates, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity, while the Intel Arc Pro A60M dominates in power efficiency, ray tracing features, and API version support. Users should select based on whether their priority is maximum throughput or feature integration within a constrained power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Arc Pro A60M | Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA |

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

| Chip | DG2-256 | 7G105 |

| Architecture | Xe-HPG | TrueGPU |

| Generation | Alchemist (Pro-Series Mobile) | 7G100 |

| Transistors | 11,500 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 269 mm² | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 42.8M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 128 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 83.20 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.325 TFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.65 TFLOPS (2:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 95 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | null | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | null | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | null | 268 mm x 112 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2023-06-05 | 2026-03-16 |

Both GPUs share the same process node (6 nm TSMC), PCIe interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), memory type (GDDR6), DirectX support (12 Ultimate 12_2), and OpenGL support (4.6). Both are listed as Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.