NVIDIA RTX A400 vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison
NVIDIA RTX A400
Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: NVIDIA RTX A400 vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA
The Verdict
The data presents a stark contrast between two workstation-oriented GPUs with very different positioning. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a low-profile, power-efficient entry point with a full suite of recorded benchmark scores, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA, by contrast, is a high-performance card with a 50th percentile ranking but no recorded benchmark scores in the database, making direct performance comparison impossible from the available measurements.
For users who require verified performance data, the RTX A400 has the advantage of nine recorded benchmark results. Its average benchmark score of 6078 places it within a tight competitive cluster: it is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0% delta), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019. The RTX A400 also trails the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 by only 0.6%. This grouping suggests the A400 delivers entry-level workstation compute that is competitive with integrated and older discrete solutions.
The LX ULTRA presents a different value proposition based on specifications alone. With 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, 6144 shading units, 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and a 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, it occupies a completely different performance tier. The absence of benchmark data means its real-world performance cannot be verified, but the raw specification gap is substantial. The LX ULTRA also requires a 550 W suggested PSU and dual-slot cooling, positioning it for heavier workloads. The choice depends on whether verified, modest performance or unverified but dramatically higher specifications is the priority.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². Its Ampere architecture is part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation, succeeding the Quadro Turing line and preceding Workstation Ada. The LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip on TSMC's 6 nm process under a "TrueGPU" architecture from the 7G100 generation. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.
Compute resource allocation diverges sharply. The RTX A400 implements 768 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. It includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, reflecting NVIDIA's dedicated hardware for RT and AI workloads. The LX ULTRA lists 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but its ray tracing and tensor core counts are not recorded, leaving uncertainty about its hardware acceleration for those features.
Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The RTX A400 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB GDDR6 at 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA uses a 192-bit bus with 24 GB GDDR6 at 432.0 GB/s, a 4.5x bandwidth advantage. Clock behavior differs as well: the RTX A400 has recorded base and boost clocks of 1417 MHz and 1762 MHz, while the LX ULTRA has no base or boost clock data, only a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The LX ULTRA's FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio indicates a different compute architecture than the RTX A400's 1:1 FP16/FP32 ratio of 2.706 TFLOPS.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for these two GPUs, and the LX ULTRA has an empty benchmark array. The RTX A400, however, has nine recorded scores that establish its performance profile. Its strongest result is in Passmark G3D at 5983, followed by Passmark G2D at 899. Compute performance in Passmark GPU Compute reaches 2557. Geekbench scores show 22844 in OpenCL and 22237 in Vulkan, indicating solid general compute capability.
The RTX A400's DirectX results are notably uneven. Passmark DirectX 9 returns 87, but DirectX 10 drops to 32, DirectX 11 to 37, and DirectX 12 to 27. This pattern suggests the A400 handles legacy DirectX 9 workloads relatively better than modern API workloads, an important consideration for older workstation applications. The LX ULTRA's absence from the benchmark database means no such analysis is possible for that card.
The nearest rival data for the RTX A400 provides context. With an average score of 6078, the A400 sits between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019. The delta percentages indicate the A400 is essentially at parity with all four listed rivals. This clustering suggests the A400's performance level is well-established within a narrow band, neither leading nor trailing its immediate competitors by a meaningful margin.
Specification Differences
The most significant specification gap appears in memory capacity and bandwidth. The LX ULTRA's 24 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivers 432.0 GB/s, while the RTX A400 offers 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus at 96.00 GB/s. The LX ULTRA also provides substantially more compute resources: 6144 shading units versus 768, 192 TMUs versus 24, and 96 ROPs versus 16.
FP32 compute scales accordingly. The LX ULTRA lists 24.58 TFLOPS, while the RTX A400 lists 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16 performance differs in ratio as well: the LX ULTRA achieves 49.15 TFLOPS at 2:1, while the RTX A400 matches its FP32 at 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: 192.0 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s for the LX ULTRA versus 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX A400.
Physical and power characteristics diverge significantly. The LX ULTRA is a dual-slot card measuring 268 mm by 112 mm by 40 mm, consuming 225 W TDP with a 1x 16-pin power connector and requiring a 550 W suggested PSU. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card at 163 mm by 69 mm, consuming 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The LX ULTRA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.
API support is nearly identical, with both cards featuring DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX A400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA lists Vulkan 1.3. Display outputs differ slightly: the RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the LX ULTRA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX A400 was released on 2024-04-15 and remains active; the LX ULTRA has a release date of 2026-03-16 and is also active. The LX ULTRA's manufacturer is listed as Unknown, while the RTX A400 comes from NVIDIA.
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance according to the database?
A: The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA lists 24.58 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the NVIDIA RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. The LX ULTRA also lists 6144 shading units versus 768 for the A400.
Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its nearest rivals?
A: The RTX A400's average benchmark score of 6078 is 0% different from the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077, 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019. It trails the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 by 0.6%.
Q: What memory advantages does the LX ULTRA offer?
A: The LX ULTRA provides 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Are there any recorded benchmark scores for the LX ULTRA?
A: No. The database shows an empty benchmark array for the LX ULTRA, with an average benchmark score of 0. The RTX A400 has nine recorded benchmark results across Geekbench and Passmark tests.
Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?
A: The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The LX ULTRA has a 225 W TDP with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU.
Q: Which GPU supports more advanced Vulkan features?
A: The RTX A400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the LX ULTRA supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6.
Where Each One Wins
The RTX A400 wins in verified performance data and efficiency. Its nine recorded benchmark scores provide concrete evidence of its capabilities, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The A400's 50 W TDP and single-slot design with no power connectors make it suitable for compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery. Its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modest. The A400's inclusion of 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores provides dedicated hardware for RT and AI workloads, features that may be valuable despite its lower overall compute. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the LX ULTRA's Vulkan 1.3. The A400 also carries NVIDIA's established brand and the Ampere architecture lineage.
The LX ULTRA wins decisively on raw specifications. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 performance is approximately 9x the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s is 4.5x higher. The 24 GB frame buffer is 6x larger, enabling substantially larger datasets and textures. The LX ULTRA's 6144 shading units represent an 8x increase over the A400's 768. The 192-bit memory bus versus 64-bit provides a wider data path. The LX ULTRA's FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio suggests strong mixed-precision compute capabilities. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides double the bandwidth of the A400's PCIe 4.0 x8. The LX ULTRA also uses a newer 6 nm TSMC process versus the A400's 8 nm Samsung node.
The use-case split follows the data. For tasks requiring verified performance, low power draw, compact physical footprint, or NVIDIA-specific features like ray tracing and tensor cores, the RTX A400 is the documented choice. For tasks requiring maximum memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw compute throughput, the LX ULTRA's specifications point to its intended role, though its lack of benchmark data means those specifications remain unverified in practice.