NVIDIA Rubin GPU vs Lisuan Tech LX MAX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data places the NVIDIA Rubin GPU and Lisuan Tech LX MAX in entirely different performance tiers, with the Rubin GPU dominating raw compute and the LX MAX claiming the practical graphics feature set. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the LX MAX’s 24.58 TFLOPS, a 5.29x advantage in single-precision throughput. In FP16, the Rubin GPU reaches 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 49.15 TFLOPS (2:1) on the LX MAX, a 5.29x margin that holds across both precision formats.

Texture throughput follows the same pattern. The Rubin GPU produces 2,031.2 GTexel/s compared to the LX MAX’s 384.0 GTexel/s, a 5.29x lead. Pixel rate, however, flips the narrative. The LX MAX outputs 192.0 GPixel/s while the Rubin GPU manages only 54.41 GPixel/s, meaning the LX MAX is 3.53x faster in rasterization output. This divergence indicates the Rubin GPU prioritizes compute and texture work over pixel fill, while the LX MAX is tuned for conventional graphics rendering.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the Rubin GPU. Its HBM4 memory provides 22.1 TB/s across a 16384-bit bus, while the LX MAX’s GDDR6 memory delivers 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus. That is a 51.16x bandwidth advantage for the Rubin GPU. Capacity also differs drastically: 288 GB versus 12 GB, a 24x difference. The Rubin GPU’s 896 tensor cores give it dedicated neural network acceleration, a feature entirely absent from the LX MAX’s specification sheet.

The LX MAX wins on software compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Rubin GPU reports N/A for all three APIs. The Rubin GPU also has no display outputs, whereas the LX MAX includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. For any workload requiring graphics API access or direct display connection, the LX MAX is the only functional option in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different manufacturing nodes and foundry processes. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Lisuan Tech LX MAX uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. The Rubin GPU’s chip, designated GR100, contains 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 230.8M per mm². The LX MAX’s 7G106 chip has unknown transistor count and die size, so direct density comparison is impossible from the recorded data.

Compute resources differ by scale. The Rubin GPU packs 28,672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The LX MAX has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Rubin GPU’s shading unit count is 4.67x higher, but its ROP count is 4x lower. This architecture split explains the pixel rate inversion: the LX MAX has more ROPs per shading unit, enabling faster pixel output despite lower overall compute.

Memory technology separates the two fundamentally. The Rubin GPU uses HBM4 with 288 GB capacity and a 16384-bit bus. The LX MAX uses GDDR6 with 12 GB capacity and a 192-bit bus. The Rubin GPU’s memory clock is 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the LX MAX runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Higher effective data rate on the LX MAX’s GDDR6 does not compensate for the Rubin GPU’s vastly wider bus.

Power delivery differs by an order of magnitude. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP and requires a 2700 W suggested PSU, mounted as an SXM Module. The LX MAX has a 225 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin power connector, and needs only a 550 W suggested PSU. The LX MAX is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm long, 118 mm high, and 48 mm wide. The Rubin GPU’s dimensions are not recorded.

The Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the LX MAX uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both are active production products. The Rubin GPU’s release date is recorded as 2025-12-31, with the LX MAX following on 2026-03-16. The Rubin GPU lists Server Blackwell as its predecessor; the LX MAX has no predecessor in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server-class compute accelerator, while the Lisuan Tech LX MAX is a graphics card with conventional display and API support. For FP32 compute, FP16 compute, texture work, tensor operations, memory bandwidth, and memory capacity, the Rubin GPU is the superior product by wide margins. For pixel fill rate, graphics API compatibility, and display connectivity, the LX MAX is the only viable option.

The Rubin GPU’s 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 260.0 TFLOPS FP16 place it in a performance class that the LX MAX cannot approach. Its 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth and 288 GB capacity suit large-scale data movement and model storage. The 896 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for neural network workloads, a capability the LX MAX lacks entirely.

The LX MAX’s strengths are practical rather than raw. Its 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the Rubin GPU’s 54.41 GPixel/s by 3.53x, making it better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 support mean the LX MAX runs standard graphics applications, while the Rubin GPU reports N/A for all three. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs allow direct monitor connection, which the Rubin GPU cannot provide.

The 2300 W TDP of the Rubin GPU versus 225 W for the LX MAX indicates different deployment environments. The Rubin GPU requires a 2700 W suggested PSU and uses an SXM Module form factor. The LX MAX fits a dual-slot PCIe card with a 550 W suggested PSU. These power and physical requirements align with the intended use cases: rack-mounted servers for the Rubin GPU, workstation or desktop systems for the LX MAX.

Neither product holds a universal advantage. The Rubin GPU wins every compute and memory metric recorded, while the LX MAX wins every graphics and connectivity metric recorded. The choice depends entirely on workload type. Compute-heavy server deployments favor the Rubin GPU. Graphics rendering, API compatibility, and display output favor the LX MAX.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is 5.29x higher than the Lisuan Tech LX MAX’s 24.58 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Rubin GPU provides 22.1 TB/s over a 16384-bit HBM4 interface, while the LX MAX provides 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR6 interface. The Rubin GPU’s bandwidth is 51.16x higher.

Q: Which product supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the Lisuan Tech LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU reports N/A for all graphics APIs.

Q: What are the pixel rates of each GPU?

A: The LX MAX outputs 192.0 GPixel/s, which is 3.53x higher than the Rubin GPU’s 54.41 GPixel/s. This gives the LX MAX an advantage in rasterization fill rate.

Q: Does either GPU have tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores. The Lisuan Tech LX MAX lists no tensor cores in its specifications.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP and requires a 2700 W suggested PSU. The LX MAX has a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so this comparison relies on the specification-derived metrics available in the database. The largest wins for the NVIDIA Rubin GPU appear in memory bandwidth and compute throughput.

Memory bandwidth shows the biggest gap. The Rubin GPU’s 22.1 TB/s is 51.16x the LX MAX’s 432.0 GB/s. This difference stems from the bus width: 16384 bits versus 192 bits, an 85.33x width advantage, partially offset by the LX MAX’s higher effective memory clock of 18 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps. The Rubin GPU’s 288 GB capacity is 24x the LX MAX’s 12 GB.

FP32 compute gives the Rubin GPU a 5.29x win: 130.0 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. FP16 follows the same ratio: 260.0 TFLOPS versus 49.15 TFLOPS. Texture rate also shows a 5.29x advantage: 2,031.2 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. These consistent ratios reflect the shading unit count difference of 28,672 versus 6,144, also a 4.67x ratio, with TMUs at 896 versus 192, a 4.67x ratio.

The Lisuan Tech LX MAX’s largest win is pixel rate. At 192.0 GPixel/s, it beats the Rubin GPU’s 54.41 GPixel/s by 3.53x. This comes from the LX MAX’s 96 ROPs versus the Rubin GPU’s 24 ROPs, a 4x ROP advantage. The Rubin GPU’s higher clock speed, boost 2267 MHz versus the LX MAX’s unrecorded boost clock, narrows but does not eliminate the gap.

The LX MAX also wins on graphics API support. The Rubin GPU reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the LX MAX supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Display outputs similarly favor the LX MAX with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Rubin GPU records no outputs.

Texture-to-pixel ratio highlights the architectural split. The Rubin GPU has 896 TMUs for 24 ROPs, a 37.33x ratio, indicating heavy texture and compute orientation. The LX MAX has 192 TMUs for 96 ROPs, a 2x ratio, showing a balanced graphics pipeline. The Rubin GPU’s 2,031.2 GTexel/s texture rate versus 54.41 GPixel/s pixel rate further confirms its compute-first design.

The Rubin GPU’s 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU stand against the LX MAX’s 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU. The power envelope difference is 10.22x, which aligns with the compute performance gap but not with the pixel rate gap. The LX MAX achieves 3.53x higher pixel rate while using 9.78% of the Rubin GPU’s power budget.

Bus interface differences are also recorded: PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the LX MAX. Both products list Active production status, with release dates of 2025-12-31 and 2026-03-16 respectively. The Rubin GPU’s predecessor is Server Blackwell; the LX MAX has no predecessor recorded.