NVIDIA L4 vs Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents an unusual matchup. The NVIDIA L4 has two benchmark scores in the database, while the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has no recorded benchmark results, giving it an average score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50. Consequently, the head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and neither product registers a formal win in the available comparison fields. This does not mean the L4 is automatically superior; it means the database lacks direct performance measurements for the LX 7G100, so any performance comparison must be inferred from the specification sheet rather than from actual test data.

The NVIDIA L4's recorded performance comes from Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. It scores 140838 in OpenCL and 121306 in Vulkan, yielding an average benchmark score of 131072. This places it in the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti at 131938 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135218 (3.1% higher), the NVIDIA A10M at 135230 (3.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135396 (3.2% higher). The L4 trails all four rivals by slim margins, between 0.7% and 3.2%, which indicates it sits in a competitive performance band near the top of the database.

The LX 7G100, by contrast, has no benchmark entries, no nearest rivals, and an average score of zero. Its percentile rank of 50 is the median value, but that is a default position, not a measured result. The database shows no wins for either product in the head-to-head section because no comparative tests exist. For the LX 7G100, the only available information is its architectural and specification data, which can be used to project where it might compete, but the database does not validate those projections with scores.

In terms of use-case split, the L4 is clearly positioned for tasks where measured compute performance matters, given its benchmark presence and high percentile. The LX 7G100, with its higher memory bandwidth, larger pixel rate, and dual-slot cooling, appears designed for workloads that may favor those traits, but the absence of scores means the database cannot confirm any advantage. The data supports a conclusion that the L4 is a known quantity in performance terms, while the LX 7G100 remains an unverified entry until benchmarks are recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge fundamentally in architecture, process technology, and feature set. The NVIDIA L4 uses the AD104 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 35,800 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The LX 7G100 uses the 7G106 chip under the TrueGPU architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density calculation is possible. The process node difference, 5 nm versus 6 nm, gives the L4 a manufacturing advantage in theoretical density, though the LX 7G100's unknown transistor budget prevents a direct comparison.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The L4 has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 2040 MHz, while the LX 7G100 lists no base or boost clocks at all. Memory clocks also differ: the L4 runs at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective, while the LX 7G100 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. This makes the LX 7G100's memory faster in raw clock terms, and its bandwidth reflects that.

Memory configuration is a major split. The L4 carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 300.1 GB/s bandwidth. The LX 7G100 carries 12 GB of GDDR6 on the same 192-bit bus, but achieves 432.0 GB/s bandwidth due to the higher memory clock. So the L4 has double the capacity, while the LX 7G100 has 43.9% more bandwidth (432.0 versus 300.1 GB/s).

Compute resources also differ. The L4 has 7424 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 80 raster operation units (ROPs). The LX 7G100 has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The L4 leads in shading units and TMUs, while the LX 7G100 leads in ROPs. The L4 also includes 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores, while the LX 7G100 lists no ray tracing or tensor core counts, suggesting those features may be absent or unspecified.

The L4 has a lower pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s versus the LX 7G100's 192.0 GPixel/s, a 17.6% advantage for the LX 7G100. However, the L4 has a higher texture rate of 489.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 27.5% advantage for the L4. FP32 compute shows the L4 at 30.29 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS for the LX 7G100, a 23.2% lead for the L4. FP16 differs in ratio: the L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the LX 7G100 delivers 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, giving the LX 7G100 a 62.3% lead in FP16 throughput.

Power and physical design separate them further. The L4 has a 72 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The LX 7G100 has a 225 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU. The L4 is 169 mm long, 56 mm tall, while the LX 7G100 is 294 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 49 mm wide, making it substantially larger. The L4 has no display outputs, while the LX 7G100 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

API support differs only in Vulkan version: the L4 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX 7G100 supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The L4's generation is listed as "Server Ada (Lxx)" with a predecessor of Server Ampere and successor of Server Hopper, while the LX 7G100's generation is simply "7G100" with no predecessor or successor listed. Release dates also differ: the L4 launched on 2023-03-20, while the LX 7G100 is dated 2026-06-17, a later release.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head section in the database is empty, containing no test entries, no scores, and no win counts for either product. This is the most important fact in this comparison: there are no direct benchmark results that pit the NVIDIA L4 against the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100. The L4 has its own Geekbench scores, and the LX 7G100 has none, so any head-to-head analysis must rely on the specification data alone.

The L4's recorded scores are 140838 in Geekbench OpenCL and 121306 in Geekbench Vulkan. These produce an average of 131072. Against its nearest rivals, the L4 is 0.7% behind the RTX 3090 Ti, 3.1% behind the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, 3.1% behind the A10M, and 3.2% behind the Radeon PRO W6800. These deltas are small, indicating the L4 is within a few percentage points of those four GPUs in average score, and its 95th percentile rank confirms it is a high-performing part in the broader database.

The LX 7G100 has no such data. Its average benchmark score is zero, its percentile is 50, and it has no nearest rivals. The database records no wins for either side, so the head-to-head verdict is that no measured comparison exists. Projecting from specifications, the LX 7G100's FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS exceeds the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s exceeds the L4's 300.1 GB/s. The L4 counters with higher FP32 (30.29 versus 24.58 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (489.6 versus 384.0 GTexel/s), and double the memory capacity (24 GB versus 12 GB). The L4's boost clock of 2040 MHz suggests strong single-threaded compute, while the LX 7G100 has no clock data to compare.

The pixel rate favors the LX 7G100 at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 163.2 GPixel/s, a 17.6% margin. The L4's texture rate advantage is 27.5%. The FP32 advantage for the L4 is 23.2%, and the FP16 advantage for the LX 7G100 is 62.3%. These specification deltas define the likely performance split, but without benchmark scores, the database cannot confirm how these theoretical rates translate into real-world application results.

FAQ

Q: Does the NVIDIA L4 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes, the L4 has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 140838 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 121306, resulting in an average benchmark score of 131072.

Q: Does the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the LX 7G100 has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals in the database.

Q: How does the L4 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The L4 trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti by 0.7%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 3.1%, the NVIDIA A10M by 3.1%, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 by 3.2% in average benchmark score.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the LX 7G100 has 12 GB of GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, both on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute, and which has higher FP16 compute?

A: The L4 has higher FP32 at 30.29 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS for the LX 7G100. The LX 7G100 has higher FP16 at 49.15 TFLOPS versus 30.29 TFLOPS for the L4.

Q: What are the power and physical size differences?

A: The L4 has a 72 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and is 169 mm long. The LX 7G100 has a 225 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires one 8-pin connector, and is 294 mm long.

The Verdict

The database verdict is straightforward: the NVIDIA L4 is a measured, high-performing GPU with a 95th percentile rank and an average score of 131072, while the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has no measured performance data at all. Any user choosing between these two based on the database must treat the L4 as the only one with verified compute results. The L4's scores place it within 3.2% of four established GPUs, all of which are near the top of the database, so its performance tier is well understood.

The LX 7G100, by contrast, presents a specification sheet that suggests capabilities in specific areas. Its FP16 throughput of 49.15 TFLOPS is 62.3% higher than the L4's, and its memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s is 43.9% higher. Its pixel rate is 17.6% higher. These numbers indicate the LX 7G100 may excel in workloads that leverage FP16 arithmetic and memory bandwidth, such as certain inference or rendering tasks. However, the database records no scores to validate this, so these advantages remain theoretical.

The L4's strengths are in FP32 compute, texture rate, memory capacity, and power efficiency. Its 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 is 23.2% higher, its 489.6 GTexel/s texture rate is 27.5% higher, its 24 GB memory is double the LX 7G100's 12 GB, and its 72 W TDP is 68% lower than the LX 7G100's 225 W. The L4 also includes ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the LX 7G100 does not list. For users who require measured performance, the L4 is the only choice with database support. For users who prioritize unverified FP16 or bandwidth specifications, the LX 7G100 offers those traits on paper, but the database cannot confirm real-world results.

The verdict is conditional: the L4 wins in verified compute, FP32, texture rate, capacity, and power; the LX 7G100 wins in FP16, bandwidth, and pixel rate, but only on paper. Without benchmarks, the LX 7G100's advantages are unproven. The L4's 95th percentile rank and competitive deltas against known GPUs make it the defensible pick from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification field. Process node: the L4 uses 5 nm, the LX 7G100 uses 6 nm. Transistors: the L4 has 35,800 million, the LX 7G100 has unknown. Die size: the L4 is 294 mm², the LX 7G100 is unknown. Transistor density: the L4 is 121.8M per mm², the LX 7G100 has no value.

Clocks: the L4 has a base clock of 795 MHz and boost of 2040 MHz, while the LX 7G100 has no base or boost clocks. Memory clock: the L4 is 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective, the LX 7G100 is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory: the L4 has 24 GB GDDR6, the LX 7G100 has 12 GB GDDR6. Bus width is the same at 192 bit. Bandwidth: the L4 has 300.1 GB/s, the LX 7G100 has 432.0 GB/s.

Compute units: shading units are 7424 for the L4 and 6144 for the LX 7G100. TMUs are 240 versus 192. ROPs are 80 versus 96. Ray tracing cores: the L4 has 60, the LX 7G100 has none listed. Tensor cores: the L4 has 240, the LX 7G100 has none listed.

Rates: pixel rate is 163.2 GPixel/s for the L4 and 192.0 GPixel/s for the LX 7G100. Texture rate is 489.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 30.29 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16 is 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and cooling: TDP is 72 W for the L4 and 225 W for the LX 7G100. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus one 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 550 W. The L4 has no display outputs, while the LX 7G100 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Dimensions: the L4 is 169 mm long and 56 mm tall, with no width listed. The LX 7G100 is 294 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 49 mm wide.

API support: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan differs: the L4 supports 1.4, the LX 7G100 supports 1.3. Bus interface is the same for both: PCIe 4.0 x16.

Production status is Active for both. Release dates differ: the L4 is 2023-03-20, the LX 7G100 is 2026-06-17. The L4 has a predecessor (Server Ampere) and successor (Server Hopper), while the LX 7G100 has neither. The L4's architecture is Ada Lovelace, the LX 7G100's is TrueGPU. The L4's chip is AD104, the LX 7G100's is 7G106.