NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE vs Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE and Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 occupy very different positions in the database, with the RTX 5090 SE built for maximum throughput and the LX 7G100 designed around efficiency and a smaller footprint. The recorded specifications show a clear performance hierarchy, but the LX 7G100 still holds its own in specific workloads. The following analysis breaks down the measurable differences, what they mean for real-world use, and which card suits which scenario.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct benchmark scores for either card, so the comparison rests entirely on the recorded compute and memory specifications. The RTX 5090 SE delivers 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 2.72 times the 24.58 TFLOPS produced by the LX 7G100. That gap is substantial and indicates the RTX 5090 SE will dominate in raw compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, and high-end gaming at extreme resolutions.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The RTX 5090 SE offers 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth across a 384-bit bus with 24 GB of GDDR7 memory. The LX 7G100 counters with 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus and 12 GB of GDDR6. That is a 3.10 times advantage in bandwidth for the RTX 5090 SE, which directly impacts texture streaming, large dataset loading, and 4K gaming where memory pressure is highest.

The pixel and texture rates reinforce the pattern. The RTX 5090 SE achieves 380.3 GPixel/s and 1,045.9 GTexel/s, while the LX 7G100 reaches 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s. The RTX 5090 SE is 1.98 times faster in pixel fill and 2.72 times faster in texture fill. For rasterization-heavy workloads, the RTX 5090 SE has a decisive edge.

However, the LX 7G100 does win in one specific compute metric. Its FP16 performance is 49.15 TFLOPS, achieved through a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The RTX 5090 SE also delivers 66.94 TFLOPS in FP16, but that is a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain any throughput advantage when switching to half-precision. In workloads that rely exclusively on FP16, such as certain AI inference tasks or graphics pipelines that use half-precision math, the LX 7G100 closes the gap significantly, operating at 73.4% of the RTX 5090 SE's FP16 output. That is the single closest comparison between the two cards in the entire database.

The Verdict

The data points to the RTX 5090 SE as the stronger card in virtually every measurable category. It leads in FP32 compute, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and memory clock speed. The LX 7G100 is not a direct competitor; it is a smaller, lower-power alternative that trades performance for efficiency and a simpler power requirement.

Who should pick which depends entirely on workload. The RTX 5090 SE is the obvious choice for users who need maximum FP32 throughput, large memory pools, or the fastest possible memory bandwidth. Its 500 W TDP and 900 W suggested PSU make it a serious commitment for any system, but the performance ceiling justifies that requirement for high-end builds.

The LX 7G100 suits users who prioritize lower power consumption and a more modest system footprint. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU mean it can drop into existing systems without a power supply upgrade. It also uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the RTX 5090 SE needs a 16-pin connector. For 1080p or 1440p gaming, or for compute tasks that are not memory-bandwidth limited, the LX 7G100 still delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is a respectable figure for its class.

Where Each One Wins

RTX 5090 SE wins in:

• FP32 compute: 66.94 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, a 2.72x lead.
• Memory capacity: 24 GB versus 12 GB, a direct 2x advantage.
• Memory bandwidth: 1.34 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s, a 3.10x lead.
• Texture rate: 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 2.72x lead.
• Pixel rate: 380.3 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s, a 1.98x lead.
• Modern display outputs: includes HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1b, versus the LX 7G100's DisplayPort 1.4a only.
• PCIe generation: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16, which matters for future platform bandwidth.
• API support: Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.3, plus a newer memory type in GDDR7.

LX 7G100 wins in:

• FP16 compute efficiency: 49.15 TFLOPS from a 2:1 ratio, versus the RTX 5090 SE's 1:1 ratio of 66.94 TFLOPS. This means the LX 7G100 operates at 73.4% of the RTX 5090 SE's FP16 throughput, despite being far weaker in FP32.
• Power efficiency per the data: 225 W TDP versus 500 W TDP, meaning it draws less than half the power.
• Physical size flexibility: 49 mm width versus 40 mm width on the RTX 5090 SE, though the LX 7G100 is longer at 294 mm versus 267 mm.
• Lower system requirements: 550 W suggested PSU versus 900 W, and a single 8-pin connector versus 16-pin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The RTX 5090 SE delivers 66.94 TFLOPS, which is 2.72 times the 24.58 TFLOPS of the LX 7G100.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The RTX 5090 SE has 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The LX 7G100 has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is the LX 7G100 better at half-precision compute?

A: No, but it is closer. The LX 7G100 reaches 49.15 TFLOPS in FP16, while the RTX 5090 SE reaches 66.94 TFLOPS. The LX 7G100 operates at 73.4% of the RTX 5090 SE's FP16 output, which is its best relative showing.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 5090 SE has a 500 W TDP and a suggested 900 W PSU, using a 16-pin connector. The LX 7G100 has a 225 W TDP and a suggested 550 W PSU, using an 8-pin connector.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 5090 SE supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX 7G100 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The LX 7G100 is longer at 294 mm versus 267 mm for the RTX 5090 SE, and taller at 120 mm versus 111 mm. The RTX 5090 SE is narrower at 40 mm versus 49 mm.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 5090 SE uses the GB202 chip built on NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 122.9 million per mm². The LX 7G100 uses the 7G106 chip with the TrueGPU architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The RTX 5090 SE has 14,080 shading units, 440 TMUs, and 160 ROPs. It also includes 110 RT cores and 440 tensor cores, which provide dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI workloads. The LX 7G100 has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Its RT core and tensor core counts are not recorded, so the database provides no evidence of dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware on that card.

Memory type and clock speed also differ. The RTX 5090 SE uses GDDR7 at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective speed. The LX 7G100 uses GDDR6 at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. Despite the higher physical clock on the LX 7G100, the RTX 5090 SE's wider bus and newer memory type deliver far more total bandwidth.

The bus interface differs as well. The RTX 5090 SE uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the LX 7G100 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. This matters for systems with PCIe 5.0-capable CPUs and motherboards, where the RTX 5090 SE can take full advantage of the increased bandwidth for data transfers.

Display outputs are another point of separation. The RTX 5090 SE provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The LX 7G100 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, with no HDMI port. Users with HDMI-only monitors would need an adapter for the LX 7G100.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the database:

• Manufacturer: NVIDIA versus Unknown
• Chip: GB202 versus 7G106
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 versus TrueGPU
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 92,200 million versus unknown
• Die size: 750 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor density: 122.9M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base clock: 1740 MHz versus not recorded
• Boost clock: 2377 MHz versus not recorded
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz 28 Gbps effective versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 24 GB versus 12 GB
• Memory type: GDDR7 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 1.34 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 14,080 versus 6,144
• TMUs: 440 versus 192
• ROPs: 160 versus 96
• RT cores: 110 versus not recorded
• Tensor cores: 440 versus not recorded
• Pixel rate: 380.3 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 66.94 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS
• FP16: 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 500 W versus 225 W
• Power connectors: 1x 16-pin versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 900 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 267 x 111 x 40 mm versus 294 x 120 x 49 mm
• Release date: 2025-12-31 versus 2026-06-17
• Predecessor: GeForce 40 versus not recorded
• Successor: GeForce 60 versus not recorded
• Launch MSRP: 1,499 USD versus not recorded