NVIDIA RTX A1000 vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the architecture and process node differences between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 uses the Ampere architecture on Samsung's 8 nm process with the GA107 chip. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses the TrueGPU architecture on TSMC's 6 nm process with the 7G106 chip.

Q: How much memory does each card have and what is the memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The LX MAX delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, which is significantly higher than the RTX A1000's 6.737 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The LX MAX has a 225 W TDP, requires a 16-pin connector, and a suggested 550 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both the RTX A1000 and the LX MAX support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX A1000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: Both the RTX A1000 and the LX MAX have an Active production status.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A1000 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The LX MAX uses the TrueGPU architecture with the 7G106 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. The A1000 integrates 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the LX MAX's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost clock of 1462 MHz. The LX MAX does not have recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks differ: the A1000 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the LX MAX runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

The A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores. The LX MAX has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but the database does not record RT core or tensor core counts for it.

Memory architecture diverges substantially. The A1000 uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX uses 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX also has a 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 384.0 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 46.78 GPixel/s and 105.3 GTexel/s for the A1000.

Physical design differs: the A1000 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm in length, 69 mm in height, with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP. The LX MAX is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length, 118 mm in height, 48 mm in width, with one 16-pin connector and a 225 W TDP. The A1000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Display outputs are similar in count: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A1000 and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the LX MAX. API support is nearly identical, with both supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The A1000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3.

The A1000 has a recorded release date of April 15, 2024, while the LX MAX has a release date of March 16, 2026. The A1000 lists a predecessor (Quadro Turing) and successor (Workstation Ada), while the LX MAX has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains three benchmark scores for the RTX A1000 and no benchmark scores for the LX MAX. Direct comparison is therefore limited to the A1000's measured results and the LX MAX's absence of recorded tests.

The RTX A1000 scores 969 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 52078 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 49574 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 34207. The LX MAX has an average benchmark score of 0 with no recorded benchmark entries, which places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The A1000 sits at the 79th percentile.

The A1000's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB has an average score of 34154, which is 0.2% below the A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 560 XT also scores 34133, 0.2% below. The NVIDIA TITAN V scores 34355, which is 0.4% above the A1000. The AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 33997, 0.6% below.

The head-to-head benchmark table between the two cards is empty, and the wins count is 0 for both. Without recorded LX MAX benchmarks, the data cannot establish a measured performance relationship between the two. The A1000's FP32 rate of 6.737 TFLOPS and the LX MAX's FP32 rate of 24.58 TFLOPS indicate a theoretical compute advantage for the LX MAX, but no benchmark results confirm this in practice.

The LX MAX's FP16 rate is 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to FP32, while the A1000's FP16 rate is 6.737 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The LX MAX's texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s are also much higher than the A1000's 105.3 GTexel/s and 46.78 GPixel/s. These specifications suggest a substantial throughput advantage for the LX MAX on paper, but the absence of benchmark data prevents verification.

The A1000's average score of 34207 places it near several older cards, including the TITAN V and RX 480, all within 0.6% of each other. This tight cluster indicates the A1000 performs at a level comparable to those products in the database's aggregate scoring. The LX MAX's percentile of 50, combined with a zero average score, reflects an unmeasured entry rather than a performance result.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear contrast: the RTX A1000 has three recorded benchmark scores and an average score of 34207, while the LX MAX has no recorded benchmarks and an average score of 0. The A1000 ranks at the 79th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the LX MAX ranks at the 50th percentile, a position that reflects its lack of measured performance rather than a competitive result.

For users who need a validated, tested product, the RTX A1000 is the only option with empirical data. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but its 50 W TDP and single-slot design allow installation without additional power connectors. The LX MAX offers 12 GB GDDR6 memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, along with a 225 W TDP and dual-slot footprint requiring a 16-pin connector.

The LX MAX's specification sheet shows higher raw throughput: 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 versus 6.737 TFLOPS, 6144 shading units versus 2304, and 192 texture units versus 72. The LX MAX also has a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the A1000's x8. However, the database contains no benchmark scores to confirm these specifications translate into measured performance. The A1000's closest rivals, such as the RTX A2000 12 GB at 0.2% below and the TITAN V at 0.4% above, establish its real-world standing.

The RTX A1000 is the choice for environments that require verified performance data, low power draw, and a compact single-slot form factor. The LX MAX is a product with higher advertised specifications, but its zero benchmark score means the database cannot substantiate any performance claims. The 50th percentile ranking for the LX MAX is not a performance indicator; it is a placeholder for an untested product.

Given the recorded data, the RTX A1000 delivers measurable performance in three tests, all of which place it near established rivals. The LX MAX delivers specifications that suggest greater compute capacity, but with no recorded measurements, any comparison remains theoretical. Users seeking a card with known results should choose the A1000. Users who prioritize the LX MAX's larger memory pool and higher bandwidth must accept the absence of benchmark validation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A1000 | Lisuan Tech LX MAX |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | TrueGPU |

| Chip | GA107 | 7G106 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | unknown |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | unknown |

| Base Clock | 727 MHz | not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1462 MHz | not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 72 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 18 | not recorded |

| Tensor Cores | 72 | not recorded |

| Pixel Rate | 46.78 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.3 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.737 TFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 225 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 163 mm 6.4 inches | 248 mm 9.8 inches |

| Height | 69 mm 2.7 inches | 118 mm 4.6 inches |

| Width | not recorded | 48 mm 1.9 inches |

| Release Date | April 15, 2024 | March 16, 2026 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | not recorded |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | not recorded |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 79 | 50 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 34207 | 0 |