Mystery AMD Radeon GPU cooler spotted on Chinese forums is larger than RX 7900 XTX, with a massive heatsink and 3x 8-pin connectors — possibly the RX 7950 XTX that never was

Mystery AMD Radeon RDNA3 GPU prototype
(Image credit: FP32 on Quasarzone)

A massive prototype cooler from AMD’s Radeon RX 7000 series has surfaced online, sparking speculation that AMD once considered a true RTX 4090-class GPU during the RDNA 3 era. The leak originated from Korean forum Quasarzone, where a user named FP32 shared images of a mysterious shroud purchased from the Chinese marketplace Xianyu. At first glance, it looks like a standard RX 7900 XTX reference cooler, but a second look reveals another story entirely. Thankfully, the user broke down everything, comparing the cooler with an actual, retail RX 7900 XTX.

The prototype measures almost 34 cm in length compared to 29 cm for the RX 7900 XTX, and is nearly 5.5 cm thick, taking up three slots with a triple-fan configuration. It has slightly different cutouts for LEDs as well, but it largely looks the same aesthetically.

The most eye-catching feature is its power design, with space carved out for three 8-pin connectors instead of the two seen on the 7900 XTX. This alone suggests a total board power well beyond 450W, making it more akin to Nvidia’s RTX 4090 in scale and power delivery. The heatsink itself has three painted red fins, indicating "RDNA 3," and it's a centimeter longer than the RX 7900 XTX reference edition.

Once opened up, we see a copper baseplate and a heavy heatpipe array, clearly intended for handling higher thermals and demanding loads. The internal layout of this design is decidedly different than the 7900 XTX, further suggesting it was intended for a beefier config. Keep in mind that there was no PCB inside, so it couldn't be connected to a PC for further testing. The cooler also lacks any I/O at the back, so we can't (accurately) guesstimate what model this was going to house.

There are a bunch of serial numbers stickered onto the shroud, but they don't return any info when reverse-searched for; again, a dead end.

Regardless, with the RX 7900 XTX already running a fully unlocked Navi 31 die at 96 Compute Units, this prototype may have been designed for much higher clock speeds or faster memory configurations. It’s equally possible that AMD experimented with a larger GPU variant that never made it past internal testing. Rumors of models like the RX 7950 XTX or RX 7990 XTX have circulated since 2022, but this is the first physical evidence pointing toward AMD’s exploration of a more aggressive “halo-tier” design for RDNA 3. Even a year later there was still speculation over Team Red's unreleased cards that, in hindsight, never came to be.

Such a GPU could've possibly bridged the huge gap between the RTX 80-class and 90-class cards with a middle-of-the-road option, even today. But the cooler itself is incompatible with retail designs due to its unique mounting pattern, leaving its original purpose a mystery. What’s clear is that AMD ultimately shifted focus away from the ultra-enthusiast segment, choosing to compete on efficiency and price-to-performance rather than raw power. This prototype is a reminder of what might have been if AMD had decided to go head-to-head with NVIDIA at the very top end.

Hardware samples like this often surface years after launch, usually as engineering leftovers that make their way into secondary markets. The discovery of this prototype cooler, particularly with its triple-slot, triple 8-pin design, offers a rare look at AMD’s internal experiments and discarded plans, showing that even in the RDNA 3 era, a 4090-class Radeon wasn’t entirely off the table.

TOPICS
Hassam Nasir
Contributing Writer

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

  • virgult
    AMD's D-Rex. :D
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    All the AIB 7900XTX have 3x8 pin So how is that special for this "mystery Gpu"?
    Reply
  • Alex/AT
    Would have bought this 7999XTX or nowadays 9999XTX instead of 4090 if any of 'em were true.
    4090 is a very performant beast and I like the performance, double like video upscaling, but I'm too fed with their terrible drivers and multi-monitor issues which never were the case on AMD cards (this was my first nV card in 10 years...). Having flakey and easily burnable power connector also does not add much expectations for the future even if I seem to be lucky enough to avoid it for now.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    It is a shame that AMD willingly surrenders the top end and simply fails to even try.

    Especially in light of Nvidia's melting connectors. AMD couldn't get a better opportunity. "Our GPUs don't melt"
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    I am not getting it. My XFX 7900 XTX is a 4 slot card with 3 x 8 PIN and is a beast. I don't see why this is anything special...
    Reply
  • 3ogdy
    Just like others have said : Maybe the purpose of this cooler was for AMD to determine where they could stand against nVidia with AIB cards. They already knew what AIBs would do with the reference card, so they created an AIB card themselves.
    Reply
  • A Stoner
    Short of something more problematic than ray tracing coming forward in gaming, I am thinking that in three generations of video cards, it will be trivial for a modest video card to drive a 4k game at 180 fps. So, someone will have to come up with the next eye candy need that will require ever more powerful graphics cards or in 5 generations integrated graphics will suffice for your average gamer with most of today's eye candy on full show.

    I am at the end of my vision capability at 5120x2160 on a 40 inch monitor, so smaller pixels is not really an option. It already covers the vast majority of my direct vision and some of my peripheral vision. While some games benefit from apparently 600 frames per second, and some people vision is definitely better than mine, there has to be a point at which diminishing returns become non existent returns.

    Of course, I was mostly happy with my 1080p for quite a while, but I never felt it was optimal. I am pretty close to feeling that monitors are near optimal in many ways, even if no individual monitor yet hits the perfect yet.

    What kinds of technology would be good for driving more computer power?

    Near Hemispheric monitors with the same pixel density as current high density monitors with a spherical 800R or 1000R would give some serious ability to feel part of the environment depicted. That could drive pixels up 6 or more times 4K.
    Reply
  • jlake3
    ezst036 said:
    It is a shame that AMD willingly surrenders the top end and simply fails to even try.
    There’s been rumors of multi-die GPU designs being worked on at AMD that don’t just move the memory controller off the compute die, but actually utilize multiple compute dies… but the rumors are also that AMD has run into a ton of trouble getting them to seamlessly behave like a single mega-GPU as would be necessary for gaming. Supposedly a multi-die config was the original plan for a third RDNA 4 die that would sit above Navi 48... but it presented more problems than expected and didn’t make it into production.
    Reply
  • Alex/AT
    A Stoner said:
    Short of something more problematic than ray tracing coming forward in gaming, I am thinking that in three generations of video cards, it will be trivial for a modest video card to drive a 4k game at 180 fps.
    And that would still kinda be not enough to drive 8K@60 at any decent quality settings...
    Reply
  • Charogne
    A Stoner said:
    Short of something more problematic than ray tracing coming forward in gaming, I am thinking that in three generations of video cards, it will be trivial for a modest video card to drive a 4k game at 180 fps. So, someone will have to come up with the next eye candy need that will require ever more powerful graphics cards or in 5 generations integrated graphics will suffice for your average gamer with most of today's eye candy on full show.

    I am at the end of my vision capability at 5120x2160 on a 40 inch monitor, so smaller pixels is not really an option. It already covers the vast majority of my direct vision and some of my peripheral vision. While some games benefit from apparently 600 frames per second, and some people vision is definitely better than mine, there has to be a point at which diminishing returns become non existent returns.

    Of course, I was mostly happy with my 1080p for quite a while, but I never felt it was optimal. I am pretty close to feeling that monitors are near optimal in many ways, even if no individual monitor yet hits the perfect yet.

    What kinds of technology would be good for driving more computer power?

    Near Hemispheric monitors with the same pixel density as current high density monitors with a spherical 800R or 1000R would give some serious ability to feel part of the environment depicted. That could drive pixels up 6 or more times 4K.
    next tech that will justify trading your 5090 for a 8090 is gonna be path tracing, requiring much more power for so little graphical upgrade; but with enough marketing, you will be led to believe you need it.
    Reply