NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell vs Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell shows three benchmark results: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 9579.5, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 254116, and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 282631. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database; its average benchmark score is listed as 0. This makes any direct head-to-head numerical comparison impossible. The absence of measured data for the LX ULTRA is itself a finding: the database contains no evidence of its performance under any of the three tests applied to the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell.

The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell’s average benchmark score of 182109 places it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database. Its nearest rivals, as recorded, include the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB with an average score of 183725, which is 0.9% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation with an average score of 184664, which is 1.4% higher. Against the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 D, the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell leads by 2.3%, with that rival’s average score at 178050. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB sits 2.7% above the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell with an average score of 187147. These deltas are modest, indicating that the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell performs within a tight band around its closest competitors.

Since the LX ULTRA has no benchmark entries, there is no delta percentage to report for it. The wins count in the database is 0 for both cards, reflecting the empty head-to-head benchmark array. The data does not support any claim of victory for either product in a direct test. What can be stated is that the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell’s recorded scores are substantial in absolute terms, while the LX ULTRA’s performance profile remains entirely unmeasured.

Where Each One Wins

Without any benchmark results for the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA, the database offers no evidence of a workload where it outperforms the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell holds the only recorded wins, though the win counter is technically 0 because the head-to-head array is empty. In practical terms, the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 9579.5 indicates strong DirectX 12 rasterization performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 254116 and Vulkan score of 282631 show compute and graphics API throughput that places it in the top 2% of all GPUs, per the 98th percentile figure.

The LX ULTRA’s specifications suggest it could handle certain workloads, but the database contains no measured proof. Its FP16 rate of 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is higher than its FP32 rate of 24.58 TFLOPS, which may imply a design favoring mixed-precision tasks. However, without benchmark scores, any inference about real-world wins remains speculative. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, conversely, has verifiable numbers across three distinct tests, giving it a clear edge in terms of documented capability.

One notable split exists in memory technology: the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses 48 GB of GDDR7 with a 384-bit bus and 1.34 TB/s bandwidth, while the LX ULTRA uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. This suggests the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is better positioned for memory-intensive workloads, though again, the LX ULTRA has no benchmark data to confirm or refute its suitability.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database lists an empty benchmarks array for the LX ULTRA, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. There are no test results for the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, or Geekbench Vulkan tests.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell’s average score is 182109. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB scores 183725 (0.9% higher), the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation scores 184664 (1.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 D scores 178050 (2.3% lower), and the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB scores 187147 (2.7% higher).

Q: What is the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell’s best individual benchmark result?

A: The highest recorded score is 282631 in Geekbench Vulkan, followed by 254116 in Geekbench OpenCL and 9579.5 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is in the 98th percentile of all GPUs. The LX ULTRA is in the 50th percentile, but this ranking is based on no measured scores.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has 48 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are there any head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmarks array is empty, and both wins counters are 0.

Specification Differences

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell and Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA differ across nearly every recorded specification field. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses a GB202 chip with the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and belongs to the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation. The LX ULTRA uses a 7G105 chip with the TrueGPU architecture and belongs to the 7G100 generation. Manufacturing process: the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is built on a 5 nm node at TSMC, while the LX ULTRA uses a 6 nm node at TSMC. Transistor count is 92,200 million for the NVIDIA card, with a die size of 750 mm² and a transistor density of 122.9M per mm². The LX ULTRA’s transistor count and die size are listed as unknown, with no density data.

Clock speeds present a significant divergence. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has a base clock of 1740 MHz and a boost clock of 2377 MHz. The LX ULTRA has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks differ as well: 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective for the NVIDIA card versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective for the LX ULTRA. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ, as noted earlier. Shading units are 14080 versus 6144, texture mapping units are 440 versus 192, and ROPs are 160 versus 96. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has 110 ray tracing cores and 440 tensor cores; the LX ULTRA has no recorded values for either.

Pixel rate is 380.3 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card versus 192.0 GPixel/s for the LX ULTRA. Texture rate is 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 66.94 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1) for the NVIDIA card versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) for the LX ULTRA. Power draw: the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is rated at 300 W with a suggested PSU of 700 W; the LX ULTRA is rated at 225 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 16-pin power connector.

Bus interface differs: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the NVIDIA card versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the LX ULTRA. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1b versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions are nearly identical: the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 40 mm wide; the LX ULTRA is 268 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has a release date of 2025-03-17 and a launch MSRP of 5,099 USD. The LX ULTRA has a release date of 2026-03-16 and no launch MSRP recorded. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell lists its predecessor as Workstation Ada; the LX ULTRA has no predecessor listed.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architecture split is direct: NVIDIA’s Blackwell 2.0 versus Lisuan Tech’s TrueGPU. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses the GB202 chip, a 5 nm TSMC design with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. The LX ULTRA uses the 7G105 chip, a 6 nm TSMC design with unknown transistor count and die size. This node difference of 5 nm versus 6 nm is modest but measurable in the process data. The transistor density for the NVIDIA card is 122.9M per mm², a figure that cannot be computed for the LX ULTRA due to missing die size.

Core configuration reveals the architectural gulf. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell packs 14080 shading units, 440 TMUs, 160 ROPs, 110 RT cores, and 440 tensor cores. The LX ULTRA has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but no RT or tensor core counts are recorded. This means the NVIDIA card carries dedicated hardware for ray tracing and tensor operations, while the LX ULTRA’s architecture may rely on different mechanisms that are not documented in the database.

Memory architecture also differs. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses GDDR7 with a 384-bit interface and 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. The LX ULTRA uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit interface and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card’s memory clock is 1750 MHz at 28 Gbps effective, while the LX ULTRA runs at 2250 MHz at 18 Gbps effective. The higher effective data rate of the GDDR7 memory contributes to the bandwidth gap.

API support shows partial overlap. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan version differs: 1.4 for the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell versus 1.3 for the LX ULTRA. The display output standard also diverges, with DisplayPort 2.1b on the NVIDIA card and DisplayPort 1.4a on the LX ULTRA. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell runs on PCIe 5.0 x16, while the LX ULTRA uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The FP16 ratio differs notably. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 66.94 TFLOPS. The LX ULTRA delivers FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, reaching 49.15 TFLOPS while FP32 is 24.58 TFLOPS. This suggests the LX ULTRA’s architecture emphasizes half-precision throughput relative to its single-precision capability, whereas the NVIDIA card treats both equally.

The Verdict

The data presents an asymmetric picture. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell has three recorded benchmark scores, a 98th percentile ranking, and an average score of 182109. The Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA has no benchmark scores, an average score of 0, and a 50th percentile ranking. From a pure measurement standpoint, the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is the only card with demonstrated performance in the database.

Specification comparisons reinforce this. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell offers double the memory (48 GB versus 24 GB), a wider memory bus (384-bit versus 192-bit), higher bandwidth (1.34 TB/s versus 432.0 GB/s), more shading units (14080 versus 6144), and nearly three times the FP32 throughput (66.94 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS). It also has dedicated RT cores and tensor cores, which the LX ULTRA lacks in recorded form. The process node is smaller (5 nm versus 6 nm), and the PCIe interface is newer (5.0 versus 4.0).

The LX ULTRA does hold advantages in a few recorded fields. Its FP16 ratio is 2:1, meaning it achieves 49.15 TFLOPS in half precision, which is closer to the NVIDIA card’s 66.94 TFLOPS than the FP32 comparison suggests. Its power draw is lower at 225 W versus 300 W, and its suggested PSU is 550 W versus 700 W. Its memory clock runs at 2250 MHz versus 1750 MHz, though the effective data rate is lower (18 Gbps versus 28 Gbps). Its release date is later (2026-03-16 versus 2025-03-17).

For workloads that depend on measured performance, the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is the only card with evidence. Its 98th percentile ranking places it among the top tier of all tracked GPUs. Its nearest rivals, the A100 SXM4 variants and RTX 5000 Ada Generation, are within 0.9% to 2.7% of its average score, indicating that it sits in a competitive but established performance class. The GeForce RTX 4090 D trails by 2.3%, confirming that the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell holds its own against consumer flagship silicon.

For workloads that depend on lower power consumption and half-precision throughput, the LX ULTRA has theoretical appeal. Its 225 W TDP is 75 W lower than the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, and its FP16 performance of 49.15 TFLOPS suggests a design with mixed-precision compute in mind. However, without any benchmark data, these specifications remain untested claims. The database cannot confirm whether the LX ULTRA delivers on its architecture’s promise.

The verdict follows the evidence: choose the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell if the requirement is verified performance across DX12, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads, backed by a 98th percentile ranking and a dense specification sheet. Choose the Lisuan Tech LX ULTRA only if lower power draw, a later release date, and unverified FP16 capability are acceptable, and if the absence of any measured benchmark scores is not a disqualifying factor. The data does not support any other conclusion.