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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two accelerators. Both Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 and Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA return an average benchmark score of zero, and each sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This absence of measured performance data means the comparison must rely entirely on architectural and specification-level analysis rather than empirical test results.

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is more than double the 24.58 TFLOPS offered by the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA. In FP16 workloads, the Intel part again leads with 52.43 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Lisuan Tech accelerator reaches 49.15 TFLOPS but does so at a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 throughput is achieved by processing two FP16 operations per cycle rather than one-to-one. The Intel card's texture rate of 1,638.4 GTexel/s dwarfs the Lisuan Tech's 384.0 GTexel/s, a 4.3x advantage in texture-heavy workloads.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 accesses 128 GB of HBM2e across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 3.28 TB/s of bandwidth. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus for 432.0 GB/s. The Intel part offers roughly 7.6x the memory bandwidth and 5.3x the memory capacity. However, the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA counters with a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the Intel card records a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, reflecting its lack of traditional display output capabilities.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA supports modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Intel part lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and no Vulkan support. The Intel card has no display outputs, whereas the Lisuan Tech part provides four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. These differences point to fundamentally different intended use cases despite both being classified as active production GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers 52.43 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to 24.58 TFLOPS for the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA. The Intel part holds a 2.1x advantage in single-precision floating-point performance.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses 128 GB of HBM2e on an 8192-bit bus with 3.28 TB/s bandwidth, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel accelerator provides roughly 7.6x more bandwidth and 5.3x more capacity.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan version is listed in the database.

Q: What are the physical and power differences?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses an OAM Module form factor with a 600 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is a Dual-slot card measuring 268 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with a 225 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, using a single 16-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has display output capabilities?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 records no display outputs, indicating it is designed for compute or data center workloads without direct display connectivity.

Q: How do the process nodes and foundries compare?

A: The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel chip contains 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, while transistor count and die size for the Lisuan Tech part are listed as unknown.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is built on the Ponte Vecchio chip using Intel's Generation 12.5 architecture, a member of the Data Center GPU (Ponte Vecchio) generation. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated at Intel's foundry. The chip integrates 100,000 million transistors across a 1280 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 78.1M per mm². This massive chip houses 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, 128 ray tracing cores, and zero ROPs, consistent with its compute-focused design and lack of display outputs. The base clock is 900 MHz with a boost clock of 1600 MHz, and memory runs at 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA takes a different approach. Its 7G105 chip uses 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 chip contains 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores listed. Core clocks are not specified, but memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate. The presence of ROPs and display outputs indicates a graphics-oriented design, while the Intel part's zero ROP count and absence of display outputs signal a pure data center accelerator.

The memory technologies diverge sharply. The Intel part uses HBM2e with an 8192-bit bus width, a configuration optimized for massive bandwidth in compute workloads. The Lisuan Tech part uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, a more conventional choice for graphics cards. The Intel accelerator supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Lisuan Tech part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. API support also differs: the Intel card lists DirectX 12 (12_1) with no Vulkan entry, whereas the Lisuan Tech card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The two accelerators differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel chip packs 100,000 million transistors on a 1280 mm² die, while the Lisuan Tech part records unknown values for both. Transistor density for Intel is 78.1M per mm²; no density is listed for Lisuan Tech.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Intel part has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz, while the Lisuan Tech part lists no base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1600 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective for Intel, versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for Lisuan Tech. Memory capacity is 128 GB of HBM2e for Intel versus 24 GB of GDDR6 for Lisuan Tech. Bus widths are 8192 bit and 192 bit respectively, producing bandwidths of 3.28 TB/s and 432.0 GB/s.

Compute resources differ substantially. Intel has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, 0 ROPs, and 128 ray tracing cores. Lisuan Tech has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no ray tracing cores listed. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s for Intel versus 192.0 GPixel/s for Lisuan Tech. Texture rate is 1,638.4 GTexel/s for Intel versus 384.0 GTexel/s for Lisuan Tech. FP32 throughput is 52.43 TFLOPS for Intel versus 24.58 TFLOPS for Lisuan Tech. FP16 throughput is 52.43 TFLOPS at 1:1 for Intel versus 49.15 TFLOPS at 2:1 for Lisuan Tech.

Thermal and power specifications diverge as well. The Intel part has a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU, while the Lisuan Tech part has a 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU. Form factors are OAM Module for Intel and Dual-slot for Lisuan Tech. The Lisuan Tech card uses a single 16-pin power connector; no power connector is listed for Intel. The Lisuan Tech card measures 268 mm by 112 mm by 40 mm; Intel dimensions are not recorded. The Intel card uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Lisuan Tech card uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are absent on Intel and four DisplayPort 1.4a ports on Lisuan Tech. API support shows DirectX 12 (12_1) for Intel versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) for Lisuan Tech, with Vulkan 1.3 present only on the Lisuan Tech part. Release dates differ: Intel launched on January 9, 2023, while Lisuan Tech is dated March 16, 2026. The Intel part's successor is listed as H3C Graphics; no successor is listed for Lisuan Tech.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates two accelerators aimed at entirely different segments. The Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 delivers overwhelming compute and memory resources: 52.43 TFLOPS FP32, 128 GB of HBM2e, 3.28 TB/s bandwidth, 16,384 shading units, and 128 ray tracing cores. It is a data center accelerator with no display outputs, an OAM Module form factor, a 600 W TDP, and a 1000 W suggested PSU. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA, by contrast, is a conventional graphics card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a Dual-slot form factor, 96 ROPs, 24 GB of GDDR6, 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.3.

The Intel part wins decisively on raw compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and texture processing. Its 52.43 TFLOPS FP32 output is 2.1x the Lisuan Tech's 24.58 TFLOPS, and its 3.28 TB/s bandwidth is roughly 7.6x the Lisuan Tech's 432.0 GB/s. The Intel accelerator also uses PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the Lisuan Tech card. However, the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA offers capabilities the Intel part entirely lacks: display outputs, ROPs for rasterization, and newer graphics API support including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The Lisuan Tech part also operates at a 225 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU, compared to 600 W and 1000 W for the Intel accelerator. The Lisuan Tech card is built on a more advanced 6 nm process from TSMC versus Intel's 10 nm process. Its FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio approaches the Intel part's 52.43 TFLOPS at 1:1, though the Intel implementation maintains full-rate FP16 without the 2:1 penalty.

Based on the database records, the Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 is the appropriate choice for workloads prioritizing FP32 compute, massive memory capacity, and extreme bandwidth, particularly in data center environments without display requirements. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is the appropriate choice for applications requiring rasterization, display output, modern graphics API support, and lower power consumption. The absence of benchmark scores and the 50th percentile ranking for both parts means performance in real-world tasks cannot be quantified from the available data, leaving the architectural and specification differences as the primary basis for selection.