NVIDIA H200 NVL vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data splits these two accelerators into entirely separate performance classes. The NVIDIA H200 NVL is a server-grade compute accelerator with a recorded OpenCL benchmark score of 334,891, placing it in the 100th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no recorded benchmark scores, sits at the 50th percentile, and its average benchmark score is zero. Consequently, every measurable compute win belongs to the H200 NVL.

The H200 NVL leads in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 60.32 TFLOPS, which is 2.45 times the LX MAX's 24.58 TFLOPS. In FP16 with 2:1 ratio, the H200 NVL delivers 120.6 TFLOPS versus the LX MAX's 49.15 TFLOPS, a 2.45x advantage again. The H200 NVL also dominates memory capacity and bandwidth: 141 GB of HBM3e with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth versus 12 GB of GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s. That is a 11.75x capacity advantage and an 11.32x bandwidth advantage.

The LX MAX wins in areas suited to client or workstation use. It has display outputs, specifically 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the H200 NVL has no outputs. The LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the H200 NVL lists N/A for all three APIs. The LX MAX also draws less power, with a TDP of 225 W versus 600 W, and it requires a smaller suggested PSU, 550 W versus 1000 W.

For workloads like large language model inference, scientific simulation, or massive matrix operations, the H200 NVL is the only viable option based on memory and throughput. For interactive rendering, display output, or client-side compute with lower power draw, the LX MAX is the functional choice.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages. The H200 NVL uses the GH100 chip on the Hopper architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 80,000 million transistors on an 814 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 98.3M per mm². The LX MAX uses the 7G106 chip on the TrueGPU architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC; transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The H200 NVL has 16,896 shading units, 528 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 528 tensor cores. The LX MAX has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs; it has no tensor cores listed. The H200 NVL's pixel rate is 42.84 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 942.5 GTexel/s. The LX MAX's pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s. Despite having fewer ROPs, the LX MAX's pixel rate is 4.48x higher, but the H200 NVL's texture rate is 2.45x higher.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The H200 NVL uses HBM3e with a 6144-bit bus and memory clock of 1593 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The LX MAX uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The H200 NVL's bus width is 32x wider, but the LX MAX's memory clock is faster in effective data rate terms.

The H200 NVL connects via PCIe 5.0 x16; the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The H200 NVL draws power through an 8-pin EPS connector; the LX MAX uses a single 16-pin connector. The H200 NVL has no display outputs; the LX MAX has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The H200 NVL does not list support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan; the LX MAX supports all three.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the database for these two items. The H200 NVL's single recorded benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 334,891. The LX MAX has no benchmarks recorded, so its average benchmark score is zero.

Comparing the H200 NVL to its nearest rivals provides context for its standing. The H200 NVL scores 3.1% below the NVIDIA B200 (which has an average score of 345,482), 9.4% below the NVIDIA B300 SXM6 AC (369,831), 5.3% above the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), and 13.2% above the NVIDIA L40S (295,763). These deltas show the H200 NVL sits in the upper tier of server accelerators, close to the B200 but behind the B300.

The LX MAX has no rivals listed in the database, so no comparative performance statements can be made from the recorded data. The only quantitative fact is its zero average benchmark score and 50th percentile placement, which reflects the absence of measurement data rather than a measured performance level.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two items:

• Chip: GH100 versus 7G106
• Architecture: Hopper versus TrueGPU
• Generation: Server Hopper (Hxx) versus 7G100
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 80,000 million versus unknown
• Die size: 814 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor density: 98.3M / mm² versus null
• Base clock: 1365 MHz versus null
• Boost clock: 1785 MHz versus null
• Memory clock: 1593 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective versus 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 141 GB versus 12 GB
• Memory type: HBM3e versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 6144 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 4.89 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 16896 versus 6144
• TMUs: 528 versus 192
• ROPs: 24 versus 96
• Tensor cores: 528 versus null
• Pixel rate: 42.84 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 942.5 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 60.32 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS
• FP16: 120.6 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 600 W versus 225 W
• Power connectors: 8-pin EPS versus 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: N/A versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A versus 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 267 mm 10.5 inches, 111 mm 4.4 inches versus 248 mm 9.8 inches, 118 mm 4.6 inches, 48 mm 1.9 inches
• Release date: 2024-11-17 versus 2026-03-16
• Predecessor: Server Ada versus null
• Successor: Server Blackwell versus null

Fields that match: manufacturer foundry (TSMC for both), slot width (Dual-slot for both), production status (Active for both), launch MSRP (null for both).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA H200 NVL delivers 60.32 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 2.45 times the 24.58 TFLOPS of the Lisuan Tech LX MAX.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The H200 NVL has 141 GB of HBM3e memory, while the LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6. The H200 NVL offers 11.75 times more memory capacity.

Q: Does either card support display outputs?

A: The LX MAX has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The H200 NVL has no display outputs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The H200 NVL has a TDP of 600 W and suggests a 1000 W PSU. The LX MAX has a TDP of 225 W and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan?

A: The LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The H200 NVL lists N/A for all three APIs.

Q: How does the H200 NVL compare to the AMD Instinct MI300X?

A: The H200 NVL scores 334,891 on Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.3% higher than the MI300X's average score of 317,994.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for compute-intensive server workloads. The NVIDIA H200 NVL is the superior accelerator for FP32 and FP16 math, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and texture throughput. Its 60.32 TFLOPS FP32 and 120.6 TFLOPS FP16 figures are more than double the LX MAX's corresponding numbers. Its 141 GB HBM3e pool with 4.89 TB/s bandwidth exceeds the LX MAX's 12 GB GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s by an order of magnitude. The H200 NVL also ranks in the 100th percentile of all GPUs, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 334,891 that sits 5.3% above the AMD Instinct MI300X and only 3.1% below the NVIDIA B200.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX is the appropriate choice only when the workload requires display output, graphics API support, or lower power draw. It is the only one of the two with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Its TDP of 225 W and suggested PSU of 550 W make it feasible for systems where the H200 NVL's 600 W TDP and 1000 W PSU requirement are not acceptable. The LX MAX also has a higher pixel rate, 192.0 GPixel/s versus 42.84 GPixel/s, which indicates faster rasterization throughput despite its lower texture rate.

The database contains no benchmark scores for the LX MAX, so its actual compute performance remains unmeasured. Its 50th percentile placement reflects that absence of data. Users needing verified server compute performance should select the H200 NVL. Users needing a display-capable, lower-power accelerator with graphics API support should select the LX MAX, accepting that its performance is unquantified in the database. The two products do not compete on the same workloads; the H200 NVL targets memory-bound and throughput-bound server tasks, while the LX MAX targets client-side rendering and interactive use.