NVIDIA L4 vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the NVIDIA L4, and how does it compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA L4 has an average benchmark score of 131,072. This places it 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, which scores 131,938. It is also 3.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation and the NVIDIA A10M, and 3.2% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6800.

Q: Does the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No. The database contains an empty benchmark list for the LX ULTRA, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs is 50.

Q: What are the memory specifications for both cards?

A: Both cards feature 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The NVIDIA L4 has a memory clock of 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) and a bandwidth of 300.1 GB/s. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and a higher bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the thermal design power (TDP) ratings for each card?

A: The NVIDIA L4 is rated at 72 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is rated at 225 W, uses a single 16-pin connector, and has a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA L4 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the physical size difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA L4 is a single-slot card measuring 169 mm in length and 56 mm in height. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA is a dual-slot card measuring 268 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear division. The NVIDIA L4 is the only card in this comparison with measured performance data. Its average benchmark score of 131,072 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, indicating strong compute capability. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks, an average score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile.

For any workload requiring proven, measurable compute performance, the NVIDIA L4 is the only option supported by data. Its position relative to established rivals like the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (0.7% behind) and the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (3.1% behind) shows it operates in a competitive performance tier.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA offers certain physical and architectural advantages on paper, such as higher memory bandwidth (432.0 GB/s versus 300.1 GB/s) and higher pixel rate (192.0 GPixel/s versus 163.2 GPixel/s). However, without any benchmark results, its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database. The recorded data shows no wins for either card in head-to-head comparisons, as no such tests exist.

The LX ULTRA also has a higher FP16 throughput of 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), but the L4 has higher FP32 throughput at 30.29 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. The choice depends on whether the user prioritizes verified performance (L4) or unverified but higher peak memory bandwidth and FP16 rates (LX ULTRA).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards, and the wins counter shows 0 for each. Direct comparison of measured performance is therefore impossible.

The only numerical comparison available comes from the NVIDIA L4's nearest rivals. The L4's average score of 131,072 is 0.7% lower than the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti's 131,938. It trails the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218) and the A10M (135,230) by 3.1% each, and the Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396) by 3.2%. These deltas show the L4 is competitive with high-end workstation and server GPUs, sitting within a few percentage points of each.

For the LX ULTRA, no such comparisons exist. Its average benchmark score is 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The data cannot establish any performance relationship between the LX ULTRA and other GPUs.

The specification sheets do offer some peak throughput comparisons. The L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS FP32, which is 23.2% higher than the LX ULTRA's 24.58 TFLOPS. In FP16, the LX ULTRA's 49.15 TFLOPS is 62.3% higher than the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the L4 at 489.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s, a 27.5% advantage. Pixel rate favors the LX ULTRA at 192.0 GPixel/s versus 163.2 GPixel/s, a 17.6% advantage. Memory bandwidth favors the LX ULTRA at 432.0 GB/s versus 300.1 GB/s, a 44.0% advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. Memory size and type are identical (24 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus), but the memory clock differs: the L4 runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the LX ULTRA runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). This drives the bandwidth difference of 300.1 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s.

Shading units differ: the L4 has 7424, the LX ULTRA has 6144. Texture mapping units differ: 240 versus 192. Raster output units differ: 80 versus 96. The L4 has 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores, while the LX ULTRA lists no ray tracing or tensor core counts.

Clock speeds differ. The L4 has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 2040 MHz. The LX ULTRA has no recorded base or boost clocks.

Power specifications differ substantially. The L4 draws 72 W, requires no power connector, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The LX ULTRA draws 225 W, requires one 16-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W power supply.

Physical dimensions differ. The L4 is a single-slot card at 169 mm length and 56 mm height. The LX ULTRA is a dual-slot card at 268 mm length, 112 mm height, and 40 mm width.

Display outputs differ. The L4 has no display outputs, while the LX ULTRA has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The L4 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6.

Release dates differ: the L4 was released on 2023-03-20, the LX ULTRA on 2026-03-16.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA L4 uses the AD104 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The L4 belongs to the Server Ada (Lxx) generation, with a predecessor in Server Ampere and a successor in Server Hopper.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip built on the "TrueGPU" architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Its transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown, with no transistor density data. It belongs to the 7G100 generation and has no listed predecessor or successor.

The L4 has a higher shading unit count (7424 versus 6144) and higher texture rate (489.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s). The LX ULTRA has a higher ROP count (96 versus 80) and higher pixel rate (192.0 GPixel/s versus 163.2 GPixel/s).

The L4 includes dedicated ray tracing cores (60) and tensor cores (240), features absent from the LX ULTRA's specification sheet. This suggests the L4 is designed for workloads involving ray tracing and AI acceleration, while the LX ULTRA's architecture does not advertise such dedicated hardware.

FP16 throughput differs by design. The L4 offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 30.29 TFLOPS. The LX ULTRA offers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 49.15 TFLOPS while FP32 is 24.58 TFLOPS. This indicates the LX ULTRA is optimized for workloads that can leverage FP16 arithmetic, while the L4 treats FP32 and FP16 equally.

The L4 uses no power connector, while the LX ULTRA uses a 16-pin connector, reflecting their different power envelopes. The L4's 5 nm process and lower TDP suggest a more power-efficient design, while the LX ULTRA's 6 nm process and higher TDP indicate a higher-performance-per-watt trade-off in favor of peak throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L4 wins in verified compute performance. Its average benchmark score of 131,072 is the only measured performance data in this comparison, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. It delivers higher FP32 throughput (30.29 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS), higher texture rate (489.6 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s), and more shading units (7424 versus 6144). It also includes ray tracing and tensor cores, which the LX ULTRA does not list. The L4's lower TDP of 72 W, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for dense server environments where space and power are constrained. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is one version ahead of the LX ULTRA.

The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA wins in peak memory bandwidth and certain throughput metrics. Its 432.0 GB/s bandwidth is 44.0% higher than the L4's 300.1 GB/s. Its FP16 throughput of 49.15 TFLOPS is 62.3% higher than the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s is 17.6% higher. It has more ROPs (96 versus 80). It also offers display outputs (four DisplayPort 1.4a), which the L4 completely lacks. The LX ULTRA's higher TDP of 225 W and dual-slot design indicate a card built for sustained, higher-power workloads rather than low-profile integration.

The LX ULTRA cannot be recommended for any performance-based use case from the recorded data, as it has no benchmarks. Its advantages are entirely theoretical, based on specification sheets. The L4, with its measured scores and competitive positioning against known GPUs, is the only card whose performance can be substantiated. For workloads requiring FP32 compute, AI acceleration via tensor cores, or ray tracing, the L4 is the clear choice. For workloads that might benefit from higher FP16 throughput or memory bandwidth, the LX ULTRA offers higher peak numbers, but those numbers are unverified by any benchmark result in the database.