NVIDIA RTX A400 vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the NVIDIA RTX A400 has a full benchmark suite, while the Lisuan Tech LX MAX has no recorded benchmark scores. This means the RTX A400 is the only one of the two with measured performance data, and the LX MAX cannot claim a single benchmark win based on the database.

The RTX A400 shows wins across every measured category by default, simply because it is the only card with scores. Its Passmark G3D score of 5983 places it at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, which indicates it sits in the lower-middle range of the overall performance distribution. The average benchmark score of 6078 for the A400 is close to several near rivals: NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0% delta), NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 0.5% delta), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6117, -0.6% delta), and AMD Radeon 760M (6019, 1% delta). These delta values show the A400 is effectively tied with its nearest competitors, with less than a 1% difference in either direction.

The LX MAX, in contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and an empty rivals list, meaning the database contains no measured data for it. Its percentile of 50 is a placeholder based on no actual scores. Therefore, from a pure data perspective, the LX MAX does not win anywhere. The use-case split is thus one-sided: the A400 is the only card with verified results, and any workload requiring benchmark validation would rely on the A400's numbers alone.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX MAX shows a FP32 rating of 24.58 TFLOPS versus the NVIDIA RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS, giving the LX MAX a roughly 9x advantage in single-precision compute.

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The LX MAX has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The LX MAX offers 3x the capacity and 4.5x the bandwidth.

Q: Which card draws more power?

A: The LX MAX has a TDP of 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the A400 has a TDP of 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A400 consumes 175 W less.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each card?

A: The A400 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs. The LX MAX is listed at the 50th percentile, but this figure is not backed by any benchmark scores in the database.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The LX MAX has 6144 shading units, while the A400 has 768. The LX MAX has 8x the shading units of the A400.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both are listed with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, along with OpenGL 4.6. The A400 additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards, and the wins counters are zero for both. This absence of direct comparison data is itself informative: it means any performance differential must be inferred from the individual specifications and the A400's standalone scores.

The A400's measured results show a modest profile. Its Passmark G3D score of 5983 and average benchmark score of 6078 align closely with its nearest rivals, all within a 1% delta. For example, the GeForce MX230 scores 6077 (0% delta), meaning the A400 is statistically indistinguishable from that part in average terms. The Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5% at 6049, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 leads by 0.6% at 6117, and the Radeon 760M trails by 1% at 6019. These small deltas indicate the A400 occupies a narrow performance band where no significant gap exists among its immediate peers.

In individual tests, the A400 shows a spread of results. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 87 is the highest among its DirectX tests, while DirectX 11 scores 37, DirectX 10 scores 32, and DirectX 12 scores 27. The Compute score of 2557 and 2D score of 899 round out the suite. Geekbench results show OpenCL at 22844 and Vulkan at 22237, both in the same general range.

Against the LX MAX, the A400's numbers cannot be compared directly because no LX MAX scores exist. The LX MAX's theoretical specifications, however, suggest a far higher ceiling: its FP32 rate of 24.58 TFLOPS is 9x the A400's, and its texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s is 9x the A400's 42.29 GTexel/s. The pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s for the LX MAX is 6.8x the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s. These specification gaps are the only quantitative basis for comparison, since no benchmark data for the LX MAX is recorded.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The A400 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB GDDR6 and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the LX MAX uses a 192-bit bus with 12 GB GDDR6 and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock speeds are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the A400 and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the LX MAX.

Compute resources diverge sharply: the A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the LX MAX has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, while the LX MAX lists no RT or tensor core counts. FP32 output is 2.706 TFLOPS for the A400 versus 24.58 TFLOPS for the LX MAX. FP16 output is 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) for the A400 versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) for the LX MAX.

Physical and power characteristics also differ. The A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a TDP of 50 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and dimensions of 163 mm length and 69 mm height. The LX MAX is a dual-slot card with one 16-pin connector, a TDP of 225 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and dimensions of 248 mm length, 118 mm height, and 48 mm width. The A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A400 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the LX MAX. The A400 supports Vulkan 1.4; the LX MAX supports Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The A400 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere generation, using the GA107 chip on an 8 nm process from Samsung, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The LX MAX uses a chip labeled 7G106 with the architecture name TrueGPU, belonging to the 7G100 generation, fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. Its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, so no density figure exists.

The A400 is part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) product generation and has a predecessor in Quadro Turing and a successor in Workstation Ada. The LX MAX has no listed predecessor or successor, and its manufacturer is listed as unknown. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6, but the A400's Vulkan 1.4 support exceeds the LX MAX's Vulkan 1.3.

The A400 includes dedicated RT cores (6) and tensor cores (24), which are absent from the LX MAX's spec sheet. The A400's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at a 1:1 ratio, whereas the LX MAX doubles FP16 to 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, indicating a different compute throughput strategy. The LX MAX's larger process node advantage at 6 nm versus 8 nm does not translate into a listed transistor count, leaving its density unquantifiable.

The Verdict

The data directs different users to different cards, but with an important caveat. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is the only card with measured benchmark results, and those results place it at the 35th percentile overall, with an average score of 6078 that is essentially tied with its nearest rivals. For users who need verified performance data, a low-power profile (50 W TDP, no power connectors, single-slot, 163 mm length), and a compact form factor, the A400 is the only option with recorded evidence.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX, despite having no benchmark scores, presents specifications that dwarf the A400 on paper. Its 12 GB memory, 432.0 GB/s bandwidth, 6144 shading units, 24.58 TFLOPS FP32, and 225 W TDP suggest a card aimed at workloads requiring far more compute and memory throughput than the A400 can offer. The 6 nm TSMC process, PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and dual-slot design with a 16-pin power connector all point to a higher-end positioning.

The database, however, cannot validate the LX MAX's real-world performance because no scores are recorded. Its 50th percentile is a placeholder, not a measurement. Therefore, the verdict splits along data availability: the A400 wins on the basis of verified results and efficiency, while the LX MAX wins on the basis of raw specification superiority. Users who prioritize measured, benchmark-backed performance in a low-power, small-footprint card should select the A400. Users who require the higher memory capacity, bandwidth, and compute throughput indicated by the LX MAX's specifications must accept that those figures are unverified in the database. The choice is between proven but modest performance and unproven but substantial specifications.