NVIDIA H20 vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural identities of the NVIDIA H20 and Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA?

A: The NVIDIA H20 is built on the Hopper architecture using the GH100 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G105 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ between these two cards?

A: The H20 features 96 GB of HBM3 memory on a 6144-bit bus, delivering 4.03 TB/s of bandwidth. The LX ULTRA has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The H20's memory bandwidth is roughly 9.3 times higher.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate, and what does that indicate?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA H20 has a pixel rate of 47.52 GPixel/s. This indicates the LX ULTRA is designed to handle more rasterization work per second, a typical strength for graphics-oriented tasks.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H20 delivers 39.54 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA delivers 24.58 TFLOPS. The H20 holds a 60.8% lead in single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: How do the physical form factors and power requirements differ?

A: The H20 is an SXM Module with a 500 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 900 W. The LX ULTRA is a Dual-slot card, 268 mm long, with a 225 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The H20 has no display outputs, while the LX ULTRA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which card has tensor cores, and how many?

A: The NVIDIA H20 includes 312 tensor cores. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA does not list any tensor cores in its specifications, indicating a lack of dedicated tensor processing hardware.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA H20 and Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA represent two fundamentally different design philosophies. The H20 is a server-oriented accelerator built on NVIDIA's Hopper architecture, featuring the GH100 chip. It uses a 5 nm process at TSMC and integrates 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die. The transistor density calculates to 98.3M per mm². The LX ULTRA, by contrast, uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G105 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The H20 houses 9,984 shading units, 312 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. It also includes 312 tensor cores, which are absent from the LX ULTRA's specification list. The LX ULTRA has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This ROP count is four times higher than the H20's, explaining the LX ULTRA's superior pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s versus 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The H20 relies on HBM3 with a 6144-bit bus, achieving 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The H20's memory clock is listed at 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective), while the LX ULTRA's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The H20's bus width compensates for its lower memory clock, resulting in far greater total bandwidth.

The H20's API support is marked as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, reflecting its compute-focused, headless server role. The LX ULTRA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and it includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The H20 is an SXM Module with no display outputs, while the LX ULTRA is a Dual-slot card measuring 268 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clear split in strengths. The NVIDIA H20 wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 96 GB of HBM3 and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth are designed for large datasets that cannot fit in smaller memory pools. The 312 tensor cores further emphasize its role in matrix-heavy workloads, such as AI inference and training. The H20's FP32 throughput of 39.54 TFLOPS is also significantly higher, making it the stronger choice for general compute tasks that rely on single-precision floating-point math.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins in rasterization throughput. Its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s is four times that of the H20, and its texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s is solid. With 96 ROPs, the LX ULTRA is built for frame buffer operations and display output. It provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, making it a functional graphics card for direct rendering. The H20 has no display outputs, so any visualization task requiring a monitor would fall to the LX ULTRA.

The LX ULTRA also wins in power efficiency. Its TDP is 225 W, less than half of the H20's 500 W. It requires a suggested PSU of 550 W versus 900 W for the H20. The LX ULTRA's FP32 performance per watt is higher: 24.58 TFLOPS divided by 225 W yields roughly 0.109 TFLOPS per watt, while the H20 yields 0.079 TFLOPS per watt. The LX ULTRA is also physically more flexible, fitting in a standard dual-slot PCIe 4.0 x16 configuration with a single 16-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The NVIDIA H20 uses the GH100 chip on a 5 nm process, while the LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip on a 6 nm process. The H20 integrates 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die with a density of 98.3M per mm²; the LX ULTRA's transistor count and die size are unknown.

Clock speeds: the H20 has a base clock of 1830 MHz and a boost clock of 1980 MHz. The LX ULTRA has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks differ: 1313 MHz (5.3 Gbps effective) for the H20 versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the LX ULTRA.

Memory capacity and type: the H20 has 96 GB of HBM3 on a 6144-bit bus with 4.03 TB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The H20's shading units number 9,984 versus 6,144 for the LX ULTRA. TMUs: 312 versus 192. ROPs: 24 versus 96. Tensor cores: 312 for the H20, none listed for the LX ULTRA.

Pixel rates: 47.52 GPixel/s for the H20, 192.0 GPixel/s for the LX ULTRA. Texture rates: 617.8 GTexel/s for the H20, 384.0 GTexel/s for the LX ULTRA. FP32: 39.54 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16: 79.07 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and form factor: the H20 is a 500 W SXM Module with a suggested PSU of 900 W and no power connector listed. The LX ULTRA is a 225 W Dual-slot card, 268 mm long, with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the H20, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the LX ULTRA. Display outputs: none for the H20, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the LX ULTRA. API support: N/A for the H20, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 for the LX ULTRA. Release dates: 2024-01-31 for the H20, 2026-03-16 for the LX ULTRA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for these two cards, and both have an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. However, the specification data allows for direct computational comparisons.

The most significant win for the NVIDIA H20 is in memory bandwidth. At 4.03 TB/s, it is approximately 9.3 times higher than the LX ULTRA's 432.0 GB/s. This gap is decisive for workloads that stream large matrices or datasets. The H20's FP32 output of 39.54 TFLOPS is 60.8% higher than the LX ULTRA's 24.58 TFLOPS. In FP16, the H20 delivers 79.07 TFLOPS versus 49.15 TFLOPS, a lead of 60.9%.

Texture rate favors the H20 as well. Its 617.8 GTexel/s is 60.9% higher than the LX ULTRA's 384.0 GTexel/s. The H20's shading unit count of 9,984 is 62.5% higher than the LX ULTRA's 6,144. These numbers confirm the H20's dominance in raw shader and texture throughput.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins in pixel rate. Its 192.0 GPixel/s is 4.04 times the H20's 47.52 GPixel/s. This is directly tied to the ROP count: 96 for the LX ULTRA versus 24 for the H20. The LX ULTRA also has a higher memory clock, 2250 MHz versus 1313 MHz, though the H20's wider bus more than compensates in total bandwidth.

Power consumption is another clear point of differentiation. The LX ULTRA's 225 W TDP is 55% lower than the H20's 500 W. The suggested PSU requirement is 550 W versus 900 W, a 38.9% reduction. For FP32 efficiency, the LX ULTRA achieves 0.109 TFLOPS per watt, while the H20 achieves 0.079 TFLOPS per watt, making the LX ULTRA 38% more efficient in this metric.

The Verdict

The data describes two accelerators with opposite priorities. The NVIDIA H20 is a high-bandwidth, high-compute server module. Its 96 GB HBM3 pool and 4.03 TB/s bandwidth target workloads where memory capacity and throughput are the primary constraints. The 312 tensor cores and FP32 output of 39.54 TFLOPS position it for matrix math and AI-style compute. Its lack of display outputs and N/A API support for graphics APIs confirm it is not intended for direct rendering.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is a graphics-capable card with a dual-slot form factor, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 96 ROPs make it the clear choice for rasterization-heavy tasks. Its 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU allow for easier system integration.

For users requiring massive memory bandwidth and tensor acceleration, the H20 is the only option between the two. For users needing display output, graphics API compatibility, and lower power draw, the LX ULTRA is the logical selection. The H20 leads in FP32, FP16, texture rate, and memory bandwidth. The LX ULTRA leads in pixel rate, ROP count, memory clock speed, and power efficiency. Neither card is a substitute for the other; they serve distinct segments of the accelerator market.