NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents two very different mobile graphics solutions, each with a distinct performance profile. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q is positioned as a high-efficiency, mainstream mobile part, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is specified as a high-power, large-format desktop replacement. The benchmark database shows that wins are distributed entirely by the nature of the workload, with neither part taking a universal lead.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q shows its strength in compute workloads that rely on dense, parallel FP32 processing with a 1:1 FP16 ratio. Its 7424 shading units operate at a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 1350 MHz, producing 20.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. This makes it well-suited for applications that demand consistent, round-the-clock throughput without specialized half-precision acceleration. The 232 tensor cores and 58 RT cores further enhance its capability for AI-accelerated features and ray-traced rendering within the Ada Lovelace architecture, though the database does not record specific benchmark scores for these features.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA, by contrast, wins decisively in raw throughput and memory capacity. Its 24 GB of GDDR6 memory doubles the NVIDIA part's 12 GB, making it the clear choice for large datasets, high-resolution texture pools, and memory-intensive rendering scenes. The LX ULTRA also delivers higher pixel and texture rates, with 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s versus the RTX 4080 Max-Q's 108.0 GPixel/s and 313.2 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output of 24.58 TFLOPS is approximately 23% higher than the NVIDIA part, and its FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is more than double the RTX 4080 Max-Q's 20.04 TFLOPS (1:1). This indicates a design optimized for applications that can leverage half-precision math, such as machine learning inference and certain scientific simulations.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q is the pick for efficiency-sensitive, portable systems where power draw is constrained and the software ecosystem favors standard FP32 pipelines. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is the pick for stationary or large-form-factor workstations where maximum throughput, memory capacity, and raw fill rates are the priority, and where its 225 W thermal design power is acceptable. The LX ULTRA's dual-slot width and 268 mm length further confirm its desktop-oriented role, while the RTX 4080 Max-Q's IGP slot width and lack of power connectors indicate a mobile-integrated design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory. Both use a 192-bit bus and achieve the same 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for both GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q produces 20.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA produces 24.58 TFLOPS, which is about 23% higher.

Q: How do the FP16 capabilities differ?

A: The NVIDIA part delivers 20.04 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32 throughput. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA delivers 49.15 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning it runs FP16 at twice the rate of FP32.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, significantly higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q's 108.0 GPixel/s. The LX ULTRA also has 96 ROPs versus 80 ROPs on the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q has a thermal design power of 60 W and uses no power connectors. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has a thermal design power of 225 W and requires a single 16-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with transistor count and die size listed as unknown.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark scores for either GPU, so the comparison relies entirely on the recorded specification-derived performance metrics. The most significant numerical advantage belongs to the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA in nearly every throughput category, with one notable exception.

Starting with raw compute, the LX ULTRA's FP32 output of 24.58 TFLOPS exceeds the RTX 4080 Max-Q's 20.04 TFLOPS by 4.54 TFLOPS, a 22.7% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in FP16 workloads: the LX ULTRA's 49.15 TFLOPS is more than double the RTX 4080 Max-Q's 20.04 TFLOPS, a 145% lead. This indicates that the LX ULTRA's architecture is specifically designed for half-precision acceleration, while the RTX 4080 Max-Q treats FP16 as a pass-through with no additional throughput.

In texture processing, the LX ULTRA delivers 384.0 GTexel/s versus 313.2 GTexel/s for the RTX 4080 Max-Q, a 22.6% advantage. The LX ULTRA also has a higher TMU count at 192 versus 232 for the NVIDIA part (note the NVIDIA part actually has more TMUs, yet the LX ULTRA still achieves higher texture rate due to its higher clock and architecture). The pixel rate comparison is even more lopsided: 192.0 GPixel/s for the LX ULTRA versus 108.0 GPixel/s for the RTX 4080 Max-Q, a 77.8% advantage. This is driven by the LX ULTRA's 96 ROPs versus 80 ROPs on the NVIDIA part.

Memory capacity is a clear win for the LX ULTRA, with 24 GB versus 12 GB. However, both parts share identical memory bandwidth at 432.0 GB/s due to the same 192-bit bus and 2250 MHz memory clock (18 Gbps effective). This means that for bandwidth-bound workloads, the two GPUs are evenly matched, but the LX ULTRA can hold twice as much data on-board.

The NVIDIA part's only recorded advantage is in shading unit count: 7424 units versus 6144 for the LX ULTRA, a 20.8% higher count. Despite this, the LX ULTRA still achieves higher FP32 throughput, indicating that its per-unit efficiency or clock behavior compensates for the lower count. The RTX 4080 Max-Q also has more TMUs (232 versus 192) and more tensor cores (232 versus none recorded for the LX ULTRA), plus 58 dedicated RT cores that the LX ULTRA does not list.

In summary, the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins on FP32, FP16, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory capacity. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q wins on shading unit count, TMU count, tensor core presence, and RT core presence, though these advantages do not translate into higher recorded throughput figures.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category, reflecting their divergent design goals.

Process Node: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA part has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die with a density of 121.8M per mm². The LX ULTRA's transistor count and die size are listed as unknown.

Clock Speeds: The RTX 4080 Max-Q has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 1350 MHz. The LX ULTRA has no base or boost clock listed in the database. Both share the same memory clock at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory: The RTX 4080 Max-Q has 12 GB of GDDR6, while the LX ULTRA has 24 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 192-bit bus and deliver 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The RTX 4080 Max-Q has 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 58 RT cores, and 232 tensor cores. The LX ULTRA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no recorded RT or tensor cores.

Performance Rates: The RTX 4080 Max-Q achieves 108.0 GPixel/s and 313.2 GTexel/s, with 20.04 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.04 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The LX ULTRA achieves 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s, with 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Power and Physical: The RTX 4080 Max-Q has a 60 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions. The LX ULTRA has a 225 W TDP, dual-slot width, one 16-pin power connector, a suggested 550 W power supply, and dimensions of 268 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width.

Outputs and API Support: The RTX 4080 Max-Q's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The LX ULTRA has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 4080 Max-Q supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3.

Release Timing: The RTX 4080 Max-Q was released on 2023-01-02. The LX ULTRA was released on 2026-03-16, over three years later. Both are listed as active production.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between the two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Max-Q is based on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip, part of the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. It uses a 5 nm TSMC process and integrates 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. The architecture includes 58 dedicated RT cores and 232 tensor cores, which are specialized hardware units for ray tracing and AI acceleration respectively. The FP16 performance at 1:1 ratio indicates that the tensor cores are not being used for general FP16 compute, or that the shader units process FP16 at the same rate as FP32.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is based on the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G105 chip, part of the 7G100 generation. It uses a 6 nm TSMC process, but the transistor count and die size are unknown. The architecture lacks dedicated RT and tensor cores in the recorded data, yet achieves significantly higher FP16 throughput at a 2:1 ratio. This suggests that the TrueGPU architecture implements FP16 processing in the shader units themselves, doubling the throughput without specialized tensor hardware.

The two architectures also differ in their API support: the NVIDIA part supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate and OpenGL 4.6. The power efficiency difference is stark: the RTX 4080 Max-Q delivers 20.04 TFLOPS FP32 at 60 W, while the LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 at 225 W. The NVIDIA part achieves about 0.334 TFLOPS per watt, while the LX ULTRA achieves about 0.109 TFLOPS per watt, making the Ada Lovelace part roughly three times more power-efficient in FP32 workloads. This efficiency gap reflects the fundamental design trade-off between a mobile-optimized integrated GPU and a desktop-class discrete card with substantial cooling and power delivery requirements.