Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two fundamentally different accelerators with no direct benchmark comparisons available. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 is a 10 nm Ponte Vecchio part with 48 GB of HBM2e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is a 6 nm TrueGPU part with 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The Intel part carries a 300 W TDP with a suggested 700 W power supply, while the Lisuan part uses 225 W with a suggested 550 W power supply.

The Intel part targets memory-bandwidth-bound workloads. Its 1.23 TB/s bandwidth and 48 GB capacity exceed the Lisuan part's 432.0 GB/s and 24 GB by substantial margins. The Lisuan part counters with higher raw compute figures: 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 22.22 TFLOPS, and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 versus 22.22 TFLOPS. The Lisuan part also has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the Intel part has none. The data indicates the Intel part suits large memory-footprint workloads, while the Lisuan part handles higher-throughput compute and rendering tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators use completely different silicon approaches. Intel's Ponte Vecchio chip is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, packing 100,000 million transistors into a 1280 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip on TSMC's 6 nm process, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown. The Intel part belongs to the Generation 12.5 architecture family, while the Lisuan part uses the TrueGPU architecture from the 7G100 generation.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. Intel uses HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, while Lisuan uses GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus. The Intel memory clock runs at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective, whereas the Lisuan memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The Intel part's bus width dominates: 8192 bit versus 192 bit, a 42.7x difference. This explains the bandwidth gap despite the Lisuan part's higher memory clock.

Compute unit configurations differ. The Intel part has 7168 shading units, 448 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 56 ray tracing cores. The Lisuan part has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores listed. The Intel part reports 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and 694.4 GTexel/s texture rate. The Lisuan part reports 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 384.0 GTexel/s texture rate. The Intel part has no display outputs, while the Lisuan part has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Intel part uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the Lisuan part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The Intel part uses a 1x 12-pin power connector, the Lisuan part a 1x 16-pin connector.

FAQ

Q: Which accelerator has more memory capacity?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 has 48 GB of HBM2e, exactly double the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA's 24 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which part provides higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, which is 2.36 TFLOPS higher than the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100's 22.22 TFLOPS.

Q: Can the Intel part output video to displays?

A: No. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 lists no display outputs, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The Intel part has a 300 W TDP and suggests a 700 W power supply. The Lisuan part has a 225 W TDP and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which part has a higher FP16 to FP32 ratio?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA runs FP16 at 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to FP32, while the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 runs FP16 at 22.22 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

Q: Are both accelerators currently in production?

A: Yes, the production status for both the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 and the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is listed as Active.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every major specification field. Process node: Intel uses 10 nm, Lisuan uses 6 nm. Foundry: Intel uses Intel, Lisuan uses TSMC. Transistors: Intel has 100,000 million, Lisuan is unknown. Die size: Intel is 1280 mm², Lisuan is unknown. Transistor density: Intel is 78.1M per mm², Lisuan has no listed value.

Clocks: Intel has a 1000 MHz base and 1550 MHz boost, Lisuan has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clock: Intel runs at 600 MHz with 1200 Mbps effective, Lisuan runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. Memory size: 48 GB versus 24 GB. Memory type: HBM2e versus GDDR6. Bus width: 8192 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth: 1.23 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 7168 versus 6144. TMUs: 448 versus 192. ROPs: 0 versus 96. Ray tracing cores: 56 versus none listed. Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 694.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32: 22.22 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16: 22.22 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 300 W versus 225 W. Power connector: 1x 12-pin versus 1x 16-pin. Suggested PSU: 700 W versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: none versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan: not listed versus 1.3. Dimensions: Intel is 267 mm long (10.5 inches); Lisuan is 268 mm long (10.6 inches), 112 mm high (4.4 inches), and 40 mm wide (1.6 inches). Release date: Intel on 2023-01-09, Lisuan on 2026-03-16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark results exist in the recorded data. Both parts show an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile versus all GPUs of 50. The nearest rivals lists are empty for both accelerators. The wins counter shows 0 for each side.

The comparative analysis must therefore rest on the specification-derived performance indicators. The Intel part leads in memory bandwidth by a factor of 2.85, delivering 1.23 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. It also leads in texture rate, 694.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 1.81x advantage. The Intel part has 7168 shading units versus 6144, a 16.7% higher count, and 448 TMUs versus 192, a 2.33x advantage. The Intel part has 56 ray tracing cores, while the Lisuan part lists none.

The Lisuan part leads in FP32 compute, 24.58 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS, a 10.6% advantage. It leads in FP16 by a much larger margin, 49.15 TFLOPS versus 22.22 TFLOPS, a 2.21x advantage. The Lisuan part has 96 ROPs versus 0, giving it a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 0 MPixel/s. The Lisuan part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.3 versus none listed. The Lisuan part also has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, which the Intel part lacks entirely.

The power efficiency picture favors the Lisuan part. It delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 within a 225 W TDP, yielding approximately 0.109 TFLOPS per watt. The Intel part delivers 22.22 TFLOPS within a 300 W TDP, yielding approximately 0.074 TFLOPS per watt. The Lisuan part's FP16 rate of 49.15 TFLOPS within 225 W gives approximately 0.218 TFLOPS per watt, versus the Intel part's 22.22 TFLOPS within 300 W at approximately 0.074 TFLOPS per watt.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 wins in memory-centric workloads. Its 48 GB HBM2e capacity and 8192-bit bus produce 1.23 TB/s bandwidth, which is 2.85x the Lisuan part's 432.0 GB/s. Any workload that streams large datasets, such as dense matrix operations with large working sets or multi-tenant inference serving, benefits from the Intel part's memory subsystem. The 8192-bit bus width is the dominant factor here, and the 1280 mm² die with 100,000 million transistors indicates a design optimized for massive parallel memory access. The 694.4 GTexel/s texture rate also favors the Intel part for texture-heavy work, at 1.81x the Lisuan part's rate.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins in compute-throughput and rendering scenarios. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 give it a clear edge in shader-heavy and mixed-precision workloads. The 2:1 FP16 ratio suggests accelerated half-precision paths, useful for AI inference and training. The 96 ROPs enable 192.0 GPixel/s pixel fill, making it suitable for rasterization output, while the Intel part has 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s. The DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.3 support indicate modern graphics API readiness, and the 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs allow direct display connection, which the Intel part cannot do at all.

The Lisuan part also wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU versus 300 W and 700 W for Intel means lower system power requirements. The Lisuan part is 268 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide, while the Intel part is 267 mm long. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Lisuan part provides explicit height and width dimensions, suggesting a more compact overall profile. The 6 nm TSMC process versus 10 nm Intel process also indicates a newer manufacturing generation for the Lisuan part.

The release date gap matters: the Intel part launched on 2023-01-09, while the Lisuan part is dated 2026-03-16. The later release likely incorporates newer architectural features, as evidenced by the TrueGPU architecture and the higher FP16 throughput. The Intel part's successor is listed as H3C Graphics, while the Lisuan part has no successor listed, suggesting it represents the latest entry in its 7G100 generation.

For system integration, the Intel part uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which doubles the bus interface bandwidth of the Lisuan part's PCIe 4.0 x16. This matters for data transfer between host and accelerator. However, the Lisuan part's 1x 16-pin power connector versus Intel's 1x 12-pin indicates different power delivery requirements, with the Lisuan part needing fewer total watts as shown by the TDP figures.

The data supports a clear split: choose the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1100 for memory-capacity-bound and bandwidth-bound acceleration, and choose the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA for compute-bound, graphics-capable, and power-conscious deployments. The lack of direct benchmark results means these conclusions derive entirely from the specification deltas recorded in the database.