NVIDIA RTX A400 vs Lisuan Tech LX PRO Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A400 and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO occupy very different positions in the recorded benchmark data. The A400 is a low-power, compact workstation card with a full set of measured results. The LX PRO is a large, high-power accelerator with no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The comparison therefore relies on the A400’s measured performance, its position among rivals, and the LX PRO’s raw specifications as listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the NVIDIA RTX A400 and the Lisuan Tech LX PRO. The A400 has nine recorded test scores; the LX PRO has zero. This makes a direct comparison of measured performance impossible. Instead, the A400 can be placed in context using its nearest rivals in the database.

The A400’s average benchmark score is 6078. Its nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, with an average score of 6077, a delta of 0 percent. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 6049, which is 0.5 percent behind the A400. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6117, which is 0.6 percent ahead of the A400. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6019, which is 1 percent behind the A400. This places the A400 in a tight cluster: all four rivals sit within a 1 percent band around its average score. The A400 is neither a clear winner nor a clear loser against any of these cards.

Looking at individual A400 tests, the strongest result is in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22844. Geekbench Vulkan follows at 22237. In Passmark tests, the G3D score is 5983, which dominates the DirectX-specific results. The DirectX 9 score is 87, DirectX 11 is 37, DirectX 10 is 32, and DirectX 12 is 27. The GPU compute score is 2557, and the G2D score is 899. The DirectX scores are low relative to the G3D figure, which suggests the A400’s performance is heavily dependent on the API and workload type. The database’s percentile ranking for the A400 is 35, meaning it sits below the median of all GPUs in the database.

Because the LX PRO has no benchmark data, no win can be attributed to it in any test. The A400 also has no wins against the LX PRO, since there are no head-to-head results. The only quantitative comparison available is between the A400 and its four nearest rivals, and even there, the margins are minimal. The data shows a card that is competitive with low-end mobile and older workstation parts, but nothing more.

FAQ

Q: Does the Lisuan Tech LX PRO have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The LX PRO has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. The A400 has nine recorded scores.

Q: How does the A400 compare to its closest rival in average score?

A: The A400’s average score is 6078. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6077, a delta of 0 percent. The two are effectively tied in the database.

Q: Which test gives the A400 its highest score?

A: Geekbench OpenCL at 22844 is the highest recorded score for the A400. Geekbench Vulkan is second at 22237.

Q: What is the A400’s percentile position among all GPUs?

A: The A400 is at the 35th percentile. This means 65 percent of all GPUs in the database have a higher average score.

Q: What is the LX PRO’s percentile position?

A: The LX PRO is at the 50th percentile, but with an average benchmark score of 0 and no recorded tests, this percentile does not reflect measured performance.

Q: Are the DirectX scores for the A400 consistent with its G3D score?

A: No. The Passmark G3D score is 5983, but DirectX 12 is 27, DirectX 11 is 37, and DirectX 10 is 32. The DirectX 9 score is 87. These are far below the G3D figure, indicating a large gap between the synthetic G3D test and the DirectX-specific workloads.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip, built on the Ampere architecture, from the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. It is manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The die size is 200 mm² and the transistor count is 8,700 million, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO uses the 7G105 chip, based on the TrueGPU architecture, from the 7G100 generation. It is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. It includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. The LX PRO has 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It has no listed RT cores or tensor cores in the database.

The A400’s pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s. The LX PRO’s pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s. The LX PRO’s FP32 throughput is 24.58 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 49.15 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The A400’s FP32 is 2.706 TFLOPS and its FP16 is identical at 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The LX PRO supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A400 is the newer card in terms of Vulkan support, while the LX PRO is one version behind.

The A400’s memory is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The LX PRO has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The LX PRO has six times the memory capacity and over four times the bandwidth.

The A400 has no power connectors and a TDP of 50 W. The LX PRO has a single 16-pin power connector and a TDP of 225 W. The A400 is a single-slot card, while the LX PRO is dual-slot.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every listed specification except for the API generation and production status.

Process node: The A400 uses 8 nm, the LX PRO uses 6 nm.

Foundry: The A400 is built by Samsung, the LX PRO by TSMC.

Transistors: The A400 has 8,700 million. The LX PRO is unknown.

Die size: The A400 is 200 mm². The LX PRO is unknown.

Memory size: The A400 has 4 GB, the LX PRO has 24 GB.

Memory bus width: The A400 has 64 bit, the LX PRO has 192 bit.

Memory bandwidth: The A400 has 96.00 GB/s, the LX PRO has 432.0 GB/s.

Memory clock: The A400 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), the LX PRO at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Shading units: 768 vs 6144.

Texture mapping units: 24 vs 192.

ROPs: 16 vs 96.

RT cores: 6 vs none listed.

Tensor cores: 24 vs none listed.

Pixel rate: 28.19 GPixel/s vs 192.0 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: 42.29 GTexel/s vs 384.0 GTexel/s.

FP32: 2.706 TFLOPS vs 24.58 TFLOPS.

FP16: 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 50 W vs 225 W.

Slot width: Single-slot vs dual-slot.

Power connectors: None vs 1x 16-pin.

Suggested PSU: 250 W vs 550 W.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 vs PCIe 4.0 x16.

Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Vulkan version: 1.4 vs 1.3.

Dimensions: The A400 is 163 mm long and 69 mm high. The LX PRO is 248 mm long, 118 mm high, and 48 mm wide.

Release date: The A400 was released on April 15, 2024. The LX PRO was released on March 16, 2026.

Base and boost clocks: The A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The LX PRO has no base or boost clock listed.

Predecessor: The A400’s predecessor is Quadro Turing. The LX PRO has no predecessor listed.

Successor: The A400’s successor is Workstation Ada. The LX PRO has no successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 has measured data, so it wins in any category that requires a recorded benchmark score. It has nine scores in the database, including Geekbench OpenCL at 22844 and Geekbench Vulkan at 22237. Its percentile of 35 is based on measured data, even if that percentile is below the median.

The A400 also wins on power efficiency. Its TDP is 50 W compared to the LX PRO’s 225 W. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the A400 and 550 W for the LX PRO. The A400 requires no power connectors, while the LX PRO needs a 16-pin connector. The A400 is single-slot and small, at 163 mm long and 69 mm high, versus the LX PRO’s 248 mm long, 118 mm high, and 48 mm wide dual-slot design.

The A400 wins on RT and tensor core presence. It has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. The LX PRO has none listed. For workloads that use those features, the A400 has hardware support and the LX PRO does not, based on the database.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO wins in raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput is 24.58 TFLOPS, which is 9 times the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput is 49.15 TFLOPS, 18 times the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS. Its shading unit count is 6144, which is 8 times the A400’s 768. Its texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s, 9 times the A400’s 42.29 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s, 6.8 times the A400’s 28.19 GPixel/s.

The LX PRO wins on memory. It has 24 GB versus 4 GB, a 192-bit bus versus 64-bit, and 432.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The LX PRO also has a wider PCIe interface, x16 versus x8, and a newer process node, 6 nm versus 8 nm.

The LX PRO wins on release date. It is listed as released on March 16, 2026, while the A400 was released on April 15, 2024. The LX PRO is a newer product.

The LX PRO has a higher percentile ranking in the database, 50 versus 35, but this is not tied to any measured score. The LX PRO’s average benchmark score is 0, so this percentile should not be interpreted as a performance metric.

Neither card wins in direct head-to-head tests, because none exist in the database. The wins listed above are derived from specification differences and the A400’s measured scores.

The Verdict

The data presents two cards that target different use cases. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a validated, measured product. Its scores are in the database, its performance is comparable to low-end mobile GPUs and older workstation cards, and it sits at the 35th percentile. It has RT cores, tensor cores, a low 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a compact single-slot footprint. It is a card for systems where space, power, and noise are constrained, and where the workload requires the specific features that Ampere provides.

The Lisuan Tech LX PRO has no measured scores. Its specifications are far higher in almost every numeric category: more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, more memory, higher bandwidth, higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, and a newer process node. But none of that is validated by benchmark results in the database. The LX PRO has a 225 W TDP, a 16-pin power connector, a suggested 550 W power supply, and a dual-slot, larger physical footprint. It also lacks RT cores and tensor cores in the database listing, and its Vulkan support is one version behind.

The choice between these two cards depends on whether measured data matters. If the buyer needs a card with confirmed benchmark performance, the A400 is the only one with any. If raw specifications are the priority and the absence of benchmark data is acceptable, the LX PRO offers substantially higher compute and memory figures. The A400 is the safer choice for a system that must fit a small chassis and run on a 250 W power supply. The LX PRO is the choice for a system that can accommodate a larger card and a 550 W power supply, and that prioritizes the listed compute throughput over verified results.

The database shows the A400 tied with the GeForce MX230, 0.5 percent ahead of the Quadro P2000, 0.6 percent behind the Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and 1 percent ahead of the Radeon 760M. This is a narrow performance band. The A400 is not a fast card by the database’s overall standards. The LX PRO, despite having no scores, is positioned at the 50th percentile, which is higher than the A400’s 35th, but that position is unverified.

The verdict is straightforward. For a user who requires verified benchmark results and low power draw, the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the only option with data. For a user who accepts unverified specifications and needs maximum compute throughput and memory capacity, the Lisuan Tech LX PRO is the stronger candidate on paper. The A400 wins on efficiency, feature set, and measured performance. The LX PRO wins on raw numbers, memory, and process node. Both are active products in the database, but only one has a record of actual performance.