Radeon RX 10800 XT: release date, price and specs — everything leaked so far
AMD has announced nothing about the Radeon RX 10800 XT. Here is the leaked 2027 launch window, the $2,000-$2,500 rumored price range and the 200-CU specs.
Vlad Makarovreviewed and published
AMD has not announced the Radeon RX 10800 XT. There is no product page, no launch date, no price and no first-party benchmark, and AMD has not confirmed the card exists under that name or any other. What follows is what the rumor mill has actually produced, sorted into the three questions people search for - release date, price and specs - with the caveat attached to each.
Release date: the 2027 window comes from board partners, not AMD
The most specific timing in circulation does not originate in a GPU leak at all. At Computex 2026, several AMD board partners told the Dutch outlet Tweakers what they expected; VideoCardz summarized it in June. One partner put the first RDNA 5 Radeon cards in the second or third quarter of 2027. Another called that too optimistic and pointed at late 2027, possibly early 2028. The window is fifteen months wide, and it is still the most concrete thing anyone has.
A separate leak attributed to Moore's Law is Dead, written up by TweakTown, says mid-2027 and quotes an unnamed OEM partner saying it would "be shocked" if the cards did not arrive in 2027. Sportskeeda compresses the same expectation to one line: "2027 (rumored)". None of the three dates is AMD's. The company's current desktop lineup is still RDNA 4, with the RX 9070 XT shipping since March 2025 and no announced successor. There is no event, no invitation and no keynote on the schedule.
Price: a range wide enough to cover two different products
GameGPU's August piece puts the RX 10800 XT between $2,000 and $2,500, and the smaller RX 10600 at roughly $650-$750. Sportskeeda rendered the same leak as "around $1,000, with some leaks suggesting prices up to $2,500." The $1,000 floor does not appear in the report it is attributed to, and GameGPU's only article on the card that existed when the Sportskeeda piece was published contains no such figure. A hedge word is carrying the entire bargain half of the story.
Set the leaked $2,000-$2,500 against the RTX 5090's $1,999 launch price and it stops looking cheap. It looks cheap only against the 5090's street price, which our own coverage found running from $4,399 to a $10,849 bundle after the card left first-party retail. AMD would not be undercutting Nvidia on silicon here. It would be undercutting a shortage.
The floor is contested from the other direction too. Commenters in the r/LocalLLaMA thread that reposted the GameGPU analysis did the bill of materials by hand and arrived at "$2700+ MSRP", noting that 48 GB of GDDR7 alone clears $1,200 at market prices. Memory contract prices have been climbing for months, which is why AMD raised prices roughly 10% across its GPU line heading into the fourth quarter. A four-figure launch price for a 200-CU, 48 GB, 512-bit card in that cost environment would be a decision, not an engineering result.
The spec sheet, with its own asterisks
Every number below comes from the same rumor stream, and the configurations inside it do not agree with each other.
| Specification | Leaked figure |
|---|---|
| Architecture | RDNA 5 |
| Process | 3 nm |
| Compute Units | up to 200 |
| Clocks | 3.1-3.4 GHz |
| Memory bus | 512-bit (384-bit also floated) |
| Memory | up to 48 GB GDDR7 (24-36 GB also floated) |
| Power | 350-450 W |
| Price | $2,000-$2,500 |
For scale, the shipping RX 9070 XT carries 64 Compute Units, a 2.97 GHz boost clock, 16 GB of GDDR6 and 640 GB/s of bandwidth. The leaked 200 Compute Units at 64 stream processors each work out to 12,800 shader cores, which is fewer than the RTX 5090's 21,760 FP32 cores. The case for a generational leap rests on clocks, a chiplet layout, a large Infinity Cache and a 512-bit bus, not on raw core count.
One card, several names
The naming is the cheapest tell. The same leaker stream that produced "RX 10800 XT, 200 Compute Units, 48 GB, 512-bit" also produced a flagship called the RX 10900 XT, with a 154-CU die, 36 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus and a 380 W board power. Those are not two configurations of one product. They are two products with different names, published months apart by the same source, each presented as the top of the next Radeon stack. Any spec table that blends them, as much of the coverage does, is blending two rumors.
What 48 GB would and would not buy
Capacity is the one leaked specification that would change what the card can do rather than how fast it does it. A 48 GB GDDR7 card could hold a 70B-class model in a single device with room left for context and batching, which 32 GB cannot, and inference decode is bandwidth-bound in exactly the way a wider bus addresses. That is a real difference, and it is why this rumor travels through local-AI communities rather than gaming forums.
There is no number behind it. No tokens-per-second measurement, no llama.cpp or vLLM run, and no card to run either on. The historical bottleneck for this class of workload on Radeon has not been memory but the software stack, which is why AMD's last ROCm release mattered more to this audience than any Compute Unit count. A 48 GB card with immature kernels is a slower 48 GB card.
Performance is a separate rumor, and it expires
The performance figures get their own treatment in our earlier analysis of the 15-25% claim. The short version: the 15-25% advantage applies to 4K raster rendering only, not to ray tracing and not to AI inference; the same analysis negates it against Nvidia's rumored RTX 6090, which it puts 15-20% ahead; and a second outlet headlined a 30-60% figure that does not appear in the report it cites. Anyone reading the table above as a performance prediction is reading it as something it is not.
What the leaked specs would mean in TFLOPS
The query "RX 10800 XT TFLOPS" is the one people keep asking, and the honest answer is that no official figure exists — AMD has published no specifications at all. The arithmetic from the leaked numbers is the only thing available, and it cuts against the headline; the Radeon RX 10800 XT TFLOPS figures are worked through in full.
Take the leak at face value: 200 compute units at 64 stream processors each gives 12,800 ALUs. At two floating-point operations per clock and the leaked 3.1-3.4 GHz range, that works out to roughly 79-87 TFLOPS of FP32 — below the RTX 5090's 104.8 TFLOPS, which is what 21,760 CUDA cores at 2.41 GHz produce. RDNA 5 could narrow that with architectural changes the leaks do not describe, and a 256-bit or 512-bit Infinity Cache can change real-world throughput without touching the paper number. But the compute-unit count alone does not get AMD past Nvidia's current flagship, which is the same arithmetic GameGPU's own analysis runs into.
For local AI the useful number is not FP32 at all. It is memory bandwidth: a 512-bit GDDR7 bus at the speeds the leak implies would be the figure that decides tokens per second, and nothing in the leak puts a number on it. That is the measurement to wait for.
Three caveats belong next to any TFLOPS figure, and each one moves the answer by more than the 79-87 range does.
The first is precision. The arithmetic above is FP32, the widest format. RDNA packs two FP16 operations into the same block, so the same silicon would quote roughly double the FP16 number, and INT8 or FP8 figures — the ones that matter for quantised inference — are higher again. A card advertised at "160 TFLOPS" and one advertised at "80 TFLOPS" can be the same hardware wearing different labels, which is why vendor peak numbers are not comparable across architectures.
The second is what "peak" means. Every figure here assumes every ALU issues a fused multiply-add on every clock, at the top of the leaked 3.1-3.4 GHz range. Real kernels do not sustain that: memory stalls, dependent instructions and thermal limits mean measured throughput lands well below peak, and review-site figures are measured, not derived.
The third is that none of this is the number that decides local-AI performance. Decoding a model is bound by memory bandwidth, not by ALU count — a 48 GB GDDR7 card on a 512-bit bus can be slow if that bus is fed by narrow modules, and fast if it is not. The leak quotes a bus width but no memory speed, so the figure that would actually predict tokens per second is missing from the spec sheet.
What would settle all three
A retail launch with board-partner models and a real price. Third-party 4K reviews measuring raster and ray tracing on shipping silicon, not on a Compute Unit count. And llama.cpp or vLLM throughput published next to the ROCm version that produced it. Until those exist, the release date is a partner's guess, the price is a range that spans a bargain and a halo product, and the spec sheet is a plausible list with no product behind it.
