Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and Lisuan Tech LX PRO represent two distinct approaches to GPU design, one aimed at massive data center compute and the other at a more conventional workstation or server form factor. The database records show fundamental differences in architecture, memory, and performance targets, with each card holding clear advantages in specific areas.

FAQ

Q: What are the core compute differences between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO?

A: The Intel Max 1550 uses the Ponte Vecchio chip on a 10 nm process with 100,000 million transistors, delivering 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 and 52.43 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The Lisuan LX PRO uses the 7G105 chip on a 6 nm process, delivering 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Intel Max 1550 has 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus with 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. The Lisuan LX PRO has 24 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in power requirements?

A: The Intel Max 1550 has a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Lisuan LX PRO has a 225 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Intel Max 1550 has 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs. The Lisuan LX PRO has 6144 shading units and 192 TMUs.

Q: Do these cards support different PCIe interfaces?

A: Yes. The Intel Max 1550 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Lisuan LX PRO uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The Intel Max 1550 is an OAM Module with no display outputs. The Lisuan LX PRO is a Dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, and 48 mm in width, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is built on the Ponte Vecchio chip with Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 1280 mm² with a transistor count of 100,000 million, yielding a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². The architecture is designated as Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) and supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan support is listed. The card has 16384 shading units, 1024 texture mapping units, 0 ROPs, and 128 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, while texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO uses the 7G105 chip with the TrueGPU architecture from the 7G100 generation, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The card has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. Its pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s and texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s. The LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The memory architecture differs significantly. The Intel Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus, running at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, achieving 3.28 TB/s bandwidth. The Lisuan LX PRO uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus, running at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, achieving 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel card's memory bandwidth is nearly eight times higher.

The Intel Max 1550 has no display outputs and is an OAM Module, indicating a server or accelerator sled form factor. The Lisuan LX PRO is a Dual-slot card with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, suggesting it can drive displays directly. The power delivery also diverges: the Intel card uses a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU, while the Lisuan card uses a 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU and a single 16-pin power connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain recorded benchmark scores for either card, and the nearest rival comparisons are empty. However, the raw specification data provides a basis for direct performance comparison across multiple metrics.

In FP32 compute, the Intel Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS, which is 2.13 times the Lisuan LX PRO's 24.58 TFLOPS. This indicates the Intel card has a substantial lead in single-precision floating point workloads. In FP16, the Intel card delivers 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Lisuan card delivers 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The Intel card's FP16 performance is 1.07 times higher, though the Lisuan card's 2:1 ratio suggests it may use a different execution path for half-precision.

Texture throughput shows a similar pattern. The Intel Max 1550 achieves 1,638.4 GTexel/s, which is 4.27 times the Lisuan LX PRO's 384.0 GTexel/s. Pixel rate, however, reverses the trend: the Lisuan card has 192.0 GPixel/s while the Intel card has 0 MPixel/s, reflecting the Intel card's lack of ROPs and display outputs.

Memory bandwidth is where the Intel card dominates most decisively. The 3.28 TB/s of the Intel Max 1550 is 7.59 times higher than the 432.0 GB/s of the Lisuan LX PRO. This advantage is compounded by the Intel card's 128 GB capacity versus 24 GB, a 5.33 times difference in memory size.

The shading unit count also favors Intel: 16384 versus 6144, a 2.67 times difference. The TMU count of 1024 versus 192 gives Intel a 5.33 times advantage in texture units. The Lisuan card has 96 ROPs while the Intel card has 0, which explains the pixel rate discrepancy.

Clock speeds are not fully recorded for the Lisuan card (no base or boost clocks), but the Intel card has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. Memory clocks differ: the Intel card runs at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Lisuan card runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

The Lisuan LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Intel Max 1550 only lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and no Vulkan. This suggests the Lisuan card has more recent graphics API support, potentially relevant for client-side rendering workloads.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is designed for compute-heavy data center tasks where raw FP32 throughput, massive memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth are critical. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB memory, and 3.28 TB/s bandwidth place it in a different performance class than the Lisuan LX PRO. The Intel card's 0 MPixel/s pixel rate and lack of display outputs confirm it is not intended for rasterization or direct display.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO, with 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, 24 GB memory, and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, positions itself as a more conventional GPU with display outputs, Vulkan 1.3 support, and a dual-slot form factor. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96 ROPs indicate it can handle traditional graphics workloads, while its FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS is close to the Intel card's FP16 output.

For workloads that depend on FP32 compute, texture throughput, memory bandwidth, or memory capacity, the Intel Max 1550 is the clear choice based on the specification data. For workloads that require display outputs, Vulkan support, a lower power envelope, or a standard PCIe card form factor, the Lisuan LX PRO is the only option among the two.

The power consumption difference is notable: 600 W versus 225 W TDP, with suggested PSUs of 1000 W versus 550 W. This affects deployment scenarios, with the Lisuan card being far more accessible in terms of system power requirements. The Lisuan card also has a smaller physical footprint at 248 mm length, 118 mm height, and 48 mm width, versus the Intel OAM Module form factor.

The production status for both cards is listed as Active. The Intel Max 1550 has a successor named H3C Graphics, while the Lisuan LX PRO has no successor recorded. Release dates differ by about three years, with the Intel card dated 2023-01-09 and the Lisuan card dated 2026-03-16.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO:

• Chip: Ponte Vecchio vs 7G105
• Architecture: Generation 12.5 vs TrueGPU
• Generation: Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) vs 7G100
• Process Node: 10 nm vs 6 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Transistors: 100,000 million vs unknown
• Die Size: 1280 mm² vs unknown
• Transistor Density: 78.1M / mm² vs null
• Base Clock: 900 MHz vs null
• Boost Clock: 1600 MHz vs null
• Memory Clock: 1600 MHz, 3.2 Gbps effective vs 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 128 GB vs 24 GB
• Memory Type: HBM2e vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 3.28 TB/s vs 432.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 16384 vs 6144
• TMUs: 1024 vs 192
• ROPs: 0 vs 96
• Ray Tracing Cores: 128 vs null
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s vs 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 1,638.4 GTexel/s vs 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 52.43 TFLOPS vs 24.58 TFLOPS
• FP16: 52.43 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 600 W vs 225 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: null vs 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W vs 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs vs 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan: null vs 1.3
• Dimensions: null vs 248 mm length, 118 mm height, 48 mm width
• Release Date: 2023-01-09 vs 2026-03-16
• Successor: H3C Graphics vs null