NVIDIA L4 vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two server GPUs along clear architectural and workload lines. The NVIDIA L4, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, delivers its strengths in compute efficiency and compact integration. Its benchmark results place it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 131,072. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO, by contrast, shows no recorded benchmark scores in the database, leaving its performance profile defined by its raw specifications rather than measured results.

The L4 wins decisively in the compute-per-watt category. Its 72 W thermal design power, combined with 30.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, produces a ratio that the LX PRO cannot match on paper. The LX PRO consumes 225 W to deliver 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which means the L4 provides roughly 23% more FP32 capability while drawing less than one-third of the power. For dense server deployments where thermal envelopes and power budgets dominate planning, the L4 holds the advantage.

The LX PRO wins in memory bandwidth. Its 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, achieved through 18 Gbps effective memory speed on a 192-bit bus, exceeds the L4's 300.1 GB/s by a substantial margin. This makes the LX PRO the better fit for bandwidth-hungry workloads such as large dataset streaming, certain inference tasks, or rendering pipelines that move massive textures. The LX PRO also carries a higher pixel rate at 192.0 GPixel/s versus the L4's 163.2 GPixel/s, suggesting an advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The L4 wins on physical integration. It is a single-slot card measuring 169 mm in length and 56 mm in height, with no power connectors required. The LX PRO needs a dual-slot footprint, measures 248 mm by 118 mm by 48 mm, and requires a single 16-pin power connector. The L4's compact form factor and 250 W suggested power supply make it far easier to slot into existing servers without infrastructure changes.

The LX PRO wins on display output capability. It offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the L4 has no display outputs at all. For any workload requiring direct video output or GPU-accelerated display rendering, the LX PRO is the only option between the two.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design lineages. The NVIDIA L4 uses the AD104 chip 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 PRO uses the 7G105 chip on a 6 nm process, also from TSMC, but the database records no transistor count or die size for it.

The L4 belongs to the Server Ada generation and the Ada Lovelace architecture. It includes 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores, features absent from the LX PRO's recorded specification sheet. The LX PRO belongs to the 7G100 generation under the TrueGPU architecture, and its specifications list no RT cores or tensor cores. This indicates the L4 carries dedicated hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations, while the LX PRO relies on its general-purpose compute pipeline.

The shading engine configurations differ substantially. The L4 has 7,424 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units. The LX PRO has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The L4 leads in shading unit count and texture units, while the LX PRO leads in raster output capability. The L4's texture rate reaches 489.6 GTexel/s versus the LX PRO's 384.0 GTexel/s, reinforcing the L4's edge in texture-bound workloads. The LX PRO's higher ROP count supports its superior pixel rate.

Memory architecture shows both similarities and differences. Both cards use 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The L4 runs its memory at 12.5 Gbps effective, producing 300.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The LX PRO runs its memory at 18 Gbps effective, producing 432.0 GB/s. The LX PRO's 44% bandwidth advantage comes purely from faster memory clocks rather than a wider bus.

The FP16 performance profile reveals a key architectural split. The L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS of FP16, matching its FP32 throughput at a 1:1 ratio. The LX PRO delivers 49.15 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to its FP32 output. This means the LX PRO can double its throughput on half-precision workloads, while the L4 offers no such acceleration. For mixed-precision training or inference pipelines that leverage FP16, the LX PRO holds a clear advantage on paper.

API support differs at the Vulkan level. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The L4 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX PRO supports Vulkan 1.3. This gives the L4 compatibility with the newer Vulkan specification.

The process node difference matters for thermal density. The L4's 5 nm process is one generation ahead of the LX PRO's 6 nm node, contributing to the L4's dramatically lower power draw despite its higher transistor count and smaller die. The LX PRO's unknown transistor metrics make direct density comparisons impossible, but the recorded 225 W TDP versus 72 W indicates a much less efficient design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA L4 and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO. The L4 has two recorded benchmark scores: 140,838 in Geekbench OpenCL and 121,306 in Geekbench Vulkan. The LX PRO has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is zero.

The absence of LX PRO measurements means the comparison relies on specification analysis and the L4's position relative to known rivals. The L4's average benchmark score of 131,072 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti with an average score of 131,938 and a delta of -0.7%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 with a delta of -3.1%, the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 with a delta of -3.1%, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 with a delta of -3.2%.

The L4's Geekbench OpenCL score of 140,838 exceeds its Vulkan score of 121,306 by roughly 16%. This suggests the L4 performs better under OpenCL workloads than Vulkan workloads, a pattern common in compute-oriented server GPUs where Vulkan optimization is less mature. The LX PRO's lack of recorded scores prevents any similar analysis.

The specification comparison yields the clearest head-to-head numbers. In FP32 throughput, the L4 leads at 30.29 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS, a 23% advantage. In FP16 throughput, the LX PRO leads at 49.15 TFLOPS versus 30.29 TFLOPS, a 62% advantage. In memory bandwidth, the LX PRO leads at 432.0 GB/s versus 300.1 GB/s, a 44% advantage. In pixel rate, the LX PRO leads at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 163.2 GPixel/s, an 18% advantage. In texture rate, the L4 leads at 489.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 27% advantage.

Power consumption shows the largest single gap. The L4's 72 W TDP represents a 68% reduction from the LX PRO's 225 W. The suggested power supply requirements echo this: 250 W for the L4 versus 550 W for the LX PRO.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. The NVIDIA L4 is the superior choice for dense, power-constrained server environments where FP32 compute, texture throughput, and compact physical footprint take priority. Its 30.29 TFLOPS of FP32, 489.6 GTexel/s texture rate, single-slot design, and 72 W TDP make it the stronger candidate for general-purpose server compute, AI inference at FP32 precision, and deployments where every watt and every slot matters. Its 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs and strong Geekbench scores confirm its measured performance capability.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO is the superior choice for bandwidth-intensive and half-precision workloads where the 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 throughput deliver measurable advantages. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and four DisplayPort outputs also make it the only option between the two for display-connected rendering tasks. The 225 W TDP and dual-slot footprint demand more infrastructure, but the performance headroom in memory-bound and FP16 workloads justifies that cost for users with those specific requirements.

No measured benchmark data exists for the LX PRO, so its specification advantages remain theoretical until tested. The L4, by contrast, has verified benchmark scores and a clear position relative to known rivals. Users requiring validated performance should favor the L4. Users whose workloads align with the LX PRO's bandwidth and FP16 strengths and who can accommodate its power and space needs should evaluate it based on those specifications.

The 5 nm L4 versus 6 nm LX PRO process gap, the L4's RT and tensor cores versus the LX PRO's lack of both, and the L4's Vulkan 1.4 versus the LX PRO's Vulkan 1.3 all reinforce the L4 as the more feature-complete card. The LX PRO's advantages concentrate in memory speed, half-precision compute, ROP count, and display outputs. Neither card dominates the other across all metrics; the correct choice depends entirely on workload priorities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA L4 leads with 30.29 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to the Lisuan Tech LX PRO's 24.58 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX PRO leads with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the NVIDIA L4's 300.1 GB/s.

Q: Does the NVIDIA L4 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the L4 includes 60 RT cores. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO lists no RT cores in its specifications.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the NVIDIA L4?

A: The L4 scores 140,838 in Geekbench OpenCL and 121,306 in Geekbench Vulkan. The LX PRO has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The NVIDIA L4 has a 72 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The Lisuan Tech LX PRO has a 225 W TDP, requires one 16-pin connector, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Can either GPU drive displays directly?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX PRO has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA L4 has no display outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA L4 | Lisuan Tech LX PRO |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | AD104 | 7G105 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | TrueGPU |

| Generation | Server Ada (Lxx) | 7G100 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 795 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 2040 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz, 12.5 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 300.1 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 7424 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 240 | 192 |

| ROPs | 80 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 60 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 240 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 163.2 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 489.6 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 30.29 TFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 72 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 169 mm, 6.7 inches | 248 mm, 9.8 inches |

| Height | 56 mm, 2.2 inches | 118 mm, 4.6 inches |

| Width | null | 48 mm, 1.9 inches |

| Release Date | 2023-03-20 | 2026-03-16 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 95 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 131,072 | 0 |