NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX 5090 holds a substantial advantage across every recorded benchmark in the database, though the comparison is complicated by the fact that the Lisuan Tech LX PRO has no recorded benchmark scores. The RTX 5090’s average benchmark score sits at 79,842 points, placing it in the 92nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. The LX PRO, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of zero and no individual test results, which means direct numerical comparisons are impossible for most workloads. However, the RTX 5090’s individual scores provide a clear picture of its performance ceiling.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RTX 5090 records 18,355 points. This test stresses modern rasterization and compute workloads, and the score places the card well above the database median. The Geekbench OpenCL result reaches 334,370 points, while the Vulkan score climbs to 376,728 points. These two cross-platform compute measurements indicate strong general-purpose throughput, with the Vulkan result being roughly 12.7% higher than the OpenCL score, suggesting efficient driver-level translation of graphics and compute tasks.

PassMark results show a more granular breakdown. The DirectX 10 test returns 226 points, DirectX 11 returns 341 points, DirectX 12 returns 185 points, and DirectX 9 returns 395 points. The DirectX 11 score is 84% higher than the DirectX 12 score, which hints that the card’s newer architecture may favor legacy API paths in this particular test suite or that the DirectX 12 workload is more demanding. The PassMark G2D score of 1,413 points reflects 2D graphics throughput, while the G3D score of 39,650 points covers 3D rendering. The GPU compute score of 26,756 points is notably lower than the Geekbench compute numbers, which reflects different test methodologies rather than a weakness in raw capability.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for the RTX 5090’s standing. The NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB averages 79,605 points, which is 0.3% behind the RTX 5090. The Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB averages 79,396 points, a 0.6% deficit. The AMD Radeon RX 6850M XT averages 78,940 points, trailing by 1.1%. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X averages 80,959 points, which is 1.4% ahead of the RTX 5090 in this aggregate metric. These deltas are small, meaning the RTX 5090 sits in a tightly packed cluster of high-end cards when judged by average benchmark score alone. The RTX 5090’s percentile rank of 92 indicates that it outperforms the vast majority of the database, but the nearest rivals show that a few specialized or workstation-oriented cards can match or slightly exceed its aggregate score.

The LX PRO has no benchmark entries, so there are no head-to-head wins to report for either card. The database lists zero wins for each product in the head-to-head category. This absence of data means that any performance comparison must rely on architectural specifications and theoretical throughput figures rather than measured results.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5090 wins in every category where performance can be quantified. Its FP32 compute reaches 104.8 TFLOPS, which is more than four times the LX PRO’s 24.58 TFLOPS. The FP16 throughput is identical to FP32 on the RTX 5090 at 104.8 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio, whereas the LX PRO’s FP16 reaches 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This means the RTX 5090 handles FP16 workloads at the same rate as FP32, while the LX PRO doubles its throughput when moving to FP16. Even with that doubling, the LX PRO’s FP16 figure remains less than half of the RTX 5090’s FP32 number.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The RTX 5090 delivers 1,636.8 GTexel/s of texture fill rate and 423.6 GPixel/s of pixel fill rate. The LX PRO manages 384.0 GTexel/s and 192.0 GPixel/s, respectively. The RTX 5090’s texture rate is 4.3 times higher, and its pixel rate is 2.2 times higher. Memory bandwidth shows a similar gap: the RTX 5090 reaches 1.79 TB/s across a 512-bit bus, while the LX PRO achieves 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus. The RTX 5090’s bandwidth is roughly 4.1 times greater.

The LX PRO does hold advantages in certain physical and power characteristics. Its total board power is 225 W, compared to the RTX 5090’s 575 W. The suggested power supply for the LX PRO is 550 W, while the RTX 5090 suggests 950 W. The LX PRO is also shorter at 248 mm (9.8 inches) versus the RTX 5090’s 304 mm (12 inches), and it is less tall at 118 mm (4.6 inches) versus 137 mm (5.4 inches). The LX PRO is thicker at 48 mm (1.9 inches) compared to the RTX 5090’s 40 mm (1.6 inches), but both occupy a dual-slot form factor. These differences mean the LX PRO is the more compact and lower-power option, which could favor installations with tighter space or thermal constraints.

The RTX 5090 supports four display outputs (one HDMI 2.1b and three DisplayPort 2.1b), while the LX PRO provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RTX 5090 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the LX PRO uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The RTX 5090’s memory operates at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) on GDDR7, while the LX PRO’s GDDR6 memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The higher effective data rate on the RTX 5090, combined with the wider bus, produces the bandwidth gap noted earlier.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages. The RTX 5090 uses the GB202 chip built on NVIDIA’s Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter. The LX PRO uses the 7G105 chip with a TrueGPU architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database, and no density figure is available.

The RTX 5090 belongs to the GeForce 50 generation and the GeForce 50-series product line, with a predecessor in the GeForce 40 series and a successor in the GeForce 60 series. The LX PRO belongs to the 7G100 generation with no series designation, no predecessor, and no successor listed. The manufacturer for the LX PRO is listed as unknown, while NVIDIA is the manufacturer for the RTX 5090.

Core counts differ significantly. The RTX 5090 has 21,760 shading units, 680 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output units. It also includes 170 ray tracing cores and 680 tensor cores. The LX PRO has 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. It lists no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, meaning the database records none for those components. The RTX 5090’s shading unit count is 3.5 times higher, its TMU count is 3.5 times higher, and its ROP count is 1.8 times higher.

Memory architecture also diverges. The RTX 5090 uses 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus. The LX PRO uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The RTX 5090’s memory clock is 1750 MHz with a 28 Gbps effective data rate, while the LX PRO’s memory clock is 2250 MHz with an 18 Gbps effective rate. The resulting bandwidth figures are 1.79 TB/s for the RTX 5090 and 432.0 GB/s for the LX PRO. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RTX 5090 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the LX PRO supports Vulkan 1.3.

Power delivery differs in connector count. Both use a single 16-pin power connector, but the RTX 5090 draws up to 575 W while the LX PRO draws up to 225 W. The RTX 5090 suggests a 950 W power supply, the LX PRO suggests 550 W. The RTX 5090 is longer and taller but thinner, while the LX PRO is shorter and shorter but thicker.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5090 has 1.79 TB/s across a 512-bit bus using 32 GB of GDDR7. The LX PRO has 432.0 GB/s across a 192-bit bus using 24 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The RTX 5090 delivers 104.8 TFLOPS of FP32, while the LX PRO delivers 24.58 TFLOPS. The RTX 5090 is approximately 4.3 times higher.

Q: Does the LX PRO have ray tracing cores?

A: The database lists no ray tracing cores for the LX PRO. The RTX 5090 has 170 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RTX 5090 has a total board power of 575 W and suggests a 950 W power supply. The LX PRO has a total board power of 225 W and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Q: Which card supports newer PCIe?

A: The RTX 5090 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The LX PRO uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the LX PRO?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark entries for the LX PRO, and its average benchmark score is zero. The RTX 5090 has ten recorded benchmark scores.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The RTX 5090 dominates in raw compute, memory bandwidth, texture fill rate, and pixel fill rate. Its FP32 throughput is 104.8 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS for the LX PRO. Its memory bandwidth is 1.79 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. Its texture rate is 1,636.8 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. These gaps are large enough that the LX PRO cannot compete in workloads that rely on sustained compute or memory throughput.

The LX PRO offers advantages in power efficiency and physical size. At 225 W, it consumes less than half the power of the RTX 5090’s 575 W, and its suggested power supply of 550 W is 400 W lower. Its shorter length (248 mm versus 304 mm) and lower height (118 mm versus 137 mm) make it easier to fit into compact chassis, though its greater thickness (48 mm versus 40 mm) partially offsets that benefit. The LX PRO’s 24 GB of memory is still substantial, and its 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is respectable for a 225 W card.

The absence of benchmark data for the LX PRO means its real-world performance cannot be verified through the database. The RTX 5090, by contrast, has measured scores across multiple test suites, and its nearest rivals in the aggregate metric are all within 1.4% of its average score. The RTX 5090’s 92nd percentile rank confirms its position among the top GPUs in the database.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the RTX 5090 is the only choice in this comparison. For users who prioritize lower power draw and a more compact card, the LX PRO is the better fit, provided its performance is acceptable for the intended workload. The database does not support a recommendation for the LX PRO in performance-critical tasks, as no measured scores exist to substantiate any capability beyond its listed specifications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in the following recorded specifications:

• Chip: GB202 (RTX 5090) versus 7G105 (LX PRO)
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 versus TrueGPU
• Generation: GeForce 50 versus 7G100
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 92,200 million versus unknown
• Die size: 750 mm² versus unknown
• Memory size: 32 GB versus 24 GB
• Memory type: GDDR7 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 512 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 1.79 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s
• Memory clock: 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Shading units: 21,760 versus 6,144
• Texture mapping units: 680 versus 192
• Raster output units: 176 versus 96
• Ray tracing cores: 170 versus none listed
• Tensor cores: 680 versus none listed
• Pixel rate: 423.6 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,636.8 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 104.8 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS
• FP16: 104.8 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Total board power: 575 W versus 225 W
• Suggested PSU: 950 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 version: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 304 mm x 137 mm x 40 mm versus 248 mm x 118 mm x 48 mm
• Release date: 2025-01-29 versus 2026-03-16
• Launch MSRP: 1,999 USD versus none listed