NVIDIA RTX 6000D vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the NVIDIA RTX 6000D and the Lisuan Tech LX MAX. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither product has a recorded win in direct comparison testing. This absence of comparative measurements makes a traditional side-by-side performance analysis impossible from the database.

For the NVIDIA RTX 6000D, the database contains two individual benchmark results. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the card scores 3,522 points. In Geekbench OpenCL, it reaches 388,405 points. These results place the RTX 6000D at the 98th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 195,964. The nearest rival comparisons show the RTX 6000D sits 0.8% above the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB (which averages 194,415), 4.7% above the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB (which averages 187,147), and 6.1% above the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation (which averages 184,664). Against the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB (which averages 207,124), the RTX 6000D trails by 5.4%.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no recorded benchmarks in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. No nearest rival data exists for this product. Without benchmark scores, the database cannot provide a quantitative comparison between the two cards.

The fundamental issue is that the LX MAX lacks any measurable performance data, while the RTX 6000D has two confirmed results. The RTX 6000D's 98th percentile ranking indicates it performs near the top of the entire GPU population in the database. The LX MAX's 50th percentile ranking, combined with a zero average score, suggests it has not been tested or has not produced verifiable results.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the NVIDIA RTX 6000D?

A: The RTX 6000D has an average benchmark score of 195,964, placing it at the 98th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

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

A: No. The LX MAX has an empty benchmarks array and an average benchmark score of 0, placing it at the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the RTX 6000D compare to the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB?

A: The RTX 6000D is 4.7% ahead of the A100 SXM4 40 GB in average score, with the A100 averaging 187,147 points.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The RTX 6000D uses 84 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 448-bit bus with 1.40 TB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for each card?

A: The RTX 6000D delivers 97.04 TFLOPS FP32, while the LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 6000D has a pixel rate of 466.6 GPixel/s, compared to the LX MAX's 192.0 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design lineages. The NVIDIA RTX 6000D uses the GB202 chip built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9M per mm². This places it in the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation, succeeding the Workstation Ada line.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses the 7G106 chip on the TrueGPU architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Its generation is listed as 7G100. Transistor count and die size are recorded as unknown in the database, and no transistor density figure exists.

The RTX 6000D features 19,968 shading units, 624 texture mapping units, and 192 raster output units. It includes 156 ray tracing cores and 624 tensor cores. The LX MAX has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It has no recorded ray tracing cores or tensor cores, indicating those hardware blocks may not exist or are not accounted for in the data.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The RTX 6000D has a base clock of 1,992 MHz and a boost clock of 2,430 MHz, with memory clocked at 1,560 MHz (25 Gbps effective). The LX MAX lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory architecture is a major divider. The RTX 6000D uses 84 GB of GDDR7 across a 448-bit interface, achieving 1.40 TB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX uses 12 GB of GDDR6 across a 192-bit interface, achieving 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both cards use a dual-slot cooler and a single 16-pin power connector, but the RTX 6000D has a 600 W TDP and recommends a 1,000 W power supply, while the LX MAX has a 225 W TDP and recommends a 550 W supply.

The RTX 6000D supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also diverge: the RTX 6000D provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the LX MAX provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX 6000D supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX 6000D is the superior product based on every measurable specification in the database. Its FP32 compute of 97.04 TFLOPS is roughly 4 times the LX MAX's 24.58 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 466.6 GPixel/s more than doubles the LX MAX's 192.0 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 1,516.3 GTexel/s is nearly 4 times the LX MAX's 384.0 GTexel/s.

Memory capacity and bandwidth heavily favor the RTX 6000D. With 84 GB of GDDR7 versus 12 GB of GDDR6, the RTX 6000D holds a 7 times capacity advantage. Bandwidth of 1.40 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s represents more than a 3 times advantage. The RTX 6000D also has 156 ray tracing cores and 624 tensor cores, while the LX MAX has none recorded.

The RTX 6000D's 98th percentile ranking, its average score of 195,964, and its confirmed benchmark results in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and Geekbench OpenCL demonstrate verified performance. The LX MAX has no benchmark data, a zero average score, and a 50th percentile ranking that reflects an absence of measurable results rather than competitive performance.

For users requiring maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, and advanced ray tracing or tensor capabilities, the RTX 6000D is the only defensible choice from the data. The LX MAX cannot be recommended for any performance-critical task based on the recorded information, as no test results exist to validate its capabilities.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GB202 (RTX 6000D) versus 7G106 (LX MAX)
• Architecture: Blackwell 2.0 versus TrueGPU
• Generation: Blackwell PRO W (x000) versus 7G100
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 92,200 million versus unknown
• Die size: 750 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor density: 122.9M / mm² versus null
• Base clock: 1,992 MHz versus null
• Boost clock: 2,430 MHz versus null
• Memory clock: 1,560 MHz (25 Gbps effective) versus 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 84 GB versus 12 GB
• Memory type: GDDR7 versus GDDR6
• Memory bus width: 448 bit versus 192 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 1.40 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 19,968 versus 6,144
• TMUs: 624 versus 192
• ROPs: 192 versus 96
• Ray tracing cores: 156 versus null
• Tensor cores: 624 versus null
• Pixel rate: 466.6 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 1,516.3 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 97.04 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 97.04 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 600 W versus 225 W
• Suggested PSU: 1,000 W versus 550 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1b versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 304 mm x 137 mm x 40 mm versus 248 mm x 118 mm x 48 mm
• Release date: 2025-07-13 versus 2026-03-16
• Launch MSRP: 8,565 USD versus null

Fields that are identical include dual-slot width, 1x 16-pin power connector, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and 4 display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 6000D wins in every category where measurable data exists. It dominates in raw compute, with FP32 performance of 97.04 TFLOPS against 24.58 TFLOPS. It wins in FP16 as well, delivering 97.04 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the LX MAX delivers 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the RTX 6000D's FP16 throughput is double the LX MAX's.

The RTX 6000D wins decisively in rendering throughput. Pixel rate of 466.6 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s gives it a 2.4 times advantage. Texture rate of 1,516.3 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s gives it a 3.9 times advantage. The 624 texture mapping units versus 192, and 192 ROPs versus 96, provide the hardware foundation for these wins.

Memory-intensive workloads clearly favor the RTX 6000D. Its 84 GB GDDR7 pool with 1.40 TB/s bandwidth supports large datasets and high-resolution textures that the LX MAX's 12 GB GDDR6 with 432.0 GB/s cannot approach. The 448-bit bus versus 192-bit bus further widens the gap.

Ray tracing and tensor workloads belong exclusively to the RTX 6000D, as the LX MAX has no recorded ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The RTX 6000D's 156 RT cores and 624 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI inference, while the LX MAX has no such capabilities in the database.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX wins only in areas where lower specifications are an advantage. Its 225 W TDP versus 600 W means lower power consumption. Its 550 W suggested PSU versus 1,000 W means less demanding system power requirements. Its shorter length of 248 mm versus 304 mm may fit smaller chassis. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface is backward compatible with older platforms. Its DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are sufficient for standard displays, though less capable than DisplayPort 2.1b.

The data does not show any benchmark where the LX MAX outperforms the RTX 6000D. Without recorded benchmark scores, the LX MAX cannot claim a single performance win. The RTX 6000D holds advantages in compute, memory, rendering, ray tracing, tensor operations, API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3), and verified benchmark results. The LX MAX's only advantages are lower power draw, smaller physical footprint, and compatibility with less robust power supplies.