NVIDIA Rubin GPU vs Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the two products being compared here?

A: The comparison is between the NVIDIA Rubin GPU, a server-class accelerator based on the GR100 chip and Rubin architecture, and the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100, a dual-slot graphics card using the 7G106 chip and TrueGPU architecture.

Q: How do the manufacturing processes differ between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, but its transistor count and die size are listed as unknown in the database.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU features 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is substantially higher than the Lisuan Tech LX 7G100's 24.58 TFLOPS. The Rubin GPU is roughly 5.3 times faster in this metric.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W and a suggested PSU of 2700 W. The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 has a TDP of 225 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W, representing a much lower power envelope.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics API workloads.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU and Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Rubin GPU is a server-oriented accelerator built on the GR100 chip, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It uses the Rubin architecture and belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. The die measures 1456 mm² and packs 336,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². This is a massive compute-focused design with no display outputs.

The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 takes a more conventional GPU approach. It uses the 7G106 chip with the TrueGPU architecture from the 7G100 generation. Fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. Unlike the Rubin GPU, it includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and supports the full modern graphics API stack: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Rubin GPU has no API support listed, reinforcing its role as a compute-only accelerator.

Memory architecture separates these two products dramatically. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 across a 16384-bit bus, providing 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. The LX 7G100 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s. The Rubin GPU's memory bus is 85 times wider, and its bandwidth is roughly 51 times higher.

Compute resources also differ sharply. The Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 896 tensor cores, but only 24 ROPs. The LX 7G100 has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no tensor cores listed. The Rubin GPU's shading unit count is 4.7 times higher, and its TMU count is 4.7 times higher as well. The LX 7G100 has 4 times the ROP count, which aligns with its role as a rasterization-oriented graphics card.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Rubin GPU has a base clock of 700 MHz and a boost clock of 2267 MHz, with memory running at 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The LX 7G100's core clocks are not recorded, but its memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Rubin GPU's memory clock is lower in MHz but achieves far higher bandwidth due to the HBM4 interface.

Power and physical design are also distinct. The Rubin GPU is an SXM Module with a 2300 W TDP and a suggested 2700 W PSU. The LX 7G100 is a dual-slot card measuring 294 mm by 120 mm by 49 mm, with a 225 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 550 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different target use cases. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is designed for maximum compute throughput in server environments. Its 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 288 GB of HBM4 memory and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth, position it for large-scale compute workloads. The lack of display outputs and graphics API support confirms this focus.

The Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 is a conventional graphics card. Its 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 49.15 TFLOPS FP16 performance, 12 GB GDDR6 memory, 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate support indicate it targets rasterization and graphics rendering. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and dual-slot form factor make it a standard add-in card.

For compute-bound server deployments, the Rubin GPU is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications. For graphics workloads requiring API support and display output, the LX 7G100 has the necessary features. The two products do not compete in the same segment; the Rubin GPU's 2300 W TDP versus the LX 7G100's 225 W TDP alone separates them into different power and thermal classes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Rubin GPU | Lisuan Tech LX 7G100 |

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

| Chip | GR100 | 7G106 |

| Architecture | Rubin | TrueGPU |

| Generation | Server Rubin (Rxx) | 7G100 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 336,000 million | Unknown |

| Die Size | 1456 mm² | Unknown |

| Transistor Density | 230.8M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 700 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 2267 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM4 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 16384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 22.1 TB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 28,672 | 6,144 |

| TMUs | 896 | 192 |

| ROPs | 24 | 96 |

| Tensor Cores | 896 | Not listed |

| Pixel Rate | 54.41 GPixel/s | 192.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,031.2 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 130.0 TFLOPS | 24.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) | 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 2300 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | SXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 2700 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 6.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 294 mm x 120 mm x 49 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-12-31 | 2026-06-17 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows the NVIDIA Rubin GPU dominating in compute throughput metrics. Its FP32 performance of 130.0 TFLOPS is 5.3 times the LX 7G100's 24.58 TFLOPS. In FP16, the Rubin GPU delivers 260.0 TFLOPS versus 49.15 TFLOPS for the LX 7G100, a 5.3 times advantage. These figures place the Rubin GPU in a different performance class entirely.

Texture processing follows the same pattern. The Rubin GPU achieves 2,031.2 GTexel/s, while the LX 7G100 reaches 384.0 GTexel/s. The Rubin GPU's texture rate is 5.3 times higher, consistent with its 896 TMUs versus 192 TMUs. The Rubin GPU's TMU count is 4.7 times higher, and the texture rate scaling reflects this resource advantage.

Memory bandwidth is where the Rubin GPU shows its most extreme lead. The 22.1 TB/s bandwidth is roughly 51 times the LX 7G100's 432.0 GB/s. This is enabled by the 16384-bit HBM4 interface versus the 192-bit GDDR6 bus. The memory capacity difference is similarly large: 288 GB versus 12 GB, a 24 times gap.

The LX 7G100 wins in pixel throughput. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is 3.5 times the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. This is a direct result of the ROP counts: 96 versus 24, a 4 times advantage for the LX 7G100. The higher pixel rate indicates the LX 7G100 is optimized for rasterization and framebuffer operations, while the Rubin GPU allocates more silicon to compute and texture work.

The power efficiency picture is mixed. The LX 7G100 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP32 within a 225 W TDP, while the Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS within 2300 W. Per watt, the LX 7G100 achieves roughly 0.109 TFLOPS per watt, and the Rubin GPU achieves roughly 0.057 TFLOPS per watt, making the LX 7G100 about 1.9 times more efficient in FP32 per watt. However, the Rubin GPU's absolute performance is 5.3 times higher, which matters more in throughput-constrained server environments.

The Rubin GPU's 28672 shading units provide a 4.7 times advantage over the LX 7G100's 6144. The Rubin GPU also has 896 tensor cores, which the LX 7G100 lacks entirely. This makes the Rubin GPU suitable for tensor-accelerated workloads, while the LX 7G100 has no such capability recorded.

The LX 7G100 counters with a more balanced feature set for graphics. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 compatibility, combined with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, make it a functional graphics card. The Rubin GPU has no API support and no display outputs, so it cannot drive a display or run conventional graphics applications.

In terms of system integration, the two GPUs use different interfaces. The Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the LX 7G100 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The Rubin GPU's newer interface provides higher potential transfer rates, though the database does not list specific bandwidth figures for comparison.

The form factor difference is notable. The Rubin GPU is an SXM Module, a dense server form factor designed for high-density compute chassis. The LX 7G100 is a dual-slot card with specific dimensions: 294 mm length, 120 mm height, and 49 mm width, fitting standard desktop or workstation cases.

Release timing also differs. The Rubin GPU has a release date of 2025-12-31, while the LX 7G100 is dated 2026-06-17. Both are marked as Active in production status. The Rubin GPU lists Server Blackwell as its predecessor, while the LX 7G100 has no predecessor recorded.

Both products sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 0, indicating no recorded benchmark results are available for either product. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so the comparison relies entirely on specification data.