Is there any more to this than wishful thinking based on the AMD marketing slide?
I am definitely into ML with CUDA - so I was surprised to hear your claim that FP16 was important for gaming. (And as an ML professional, it should be excusable if I haven't heard the very recent stories that ATI is pushing FP16 for gaming. Since it's only been a few months that FP16 consumer cards began to trickle onto the market.)
FP16 is less accurate than FP32, so bad for folding Proteins and math equations, but great for games that shoot people in the face? I mean, I guess shooting people doesn't require the accuracy of other mathematical operations, but isn't AMD saying VEGA is Super Fast at going half the speed?
Really? When no current Mac supports a Vega card. Is AMD demoing FCPX on Hackintoshes?
I know right? 8k playback has nothing really to do with Final Cut Pro X, a horizontal and vertical playback of a video without stutter or dropped isn't the same as a program using that file to edit or do effects. A fast card makes Final Cut Pro X faster, but 8k playback of a file, isn't 8k realtime in Final Cut Pro X. Also Final Cut Pro X isn't reflective of how fast AMD is but of how a company(APPLE) can write proper drivers to use a GPU's full potential.
Go demo a Autodesk Flame System, Fully spaced Davinci Resolve System or Filmlight Baselight. Realtime 4k doing multiple color effects all because the software is properly written to use the GPU's to their full potential, it is all software. Baselight4 a 4k Realtime grading system, back in 2009/2010, used consumer gaming cards to do real 4k color grading.. IN 2009.. They where using off the shelf hardware to create a system that cost 200k, all because they wrote software to use all the hardware. They also split a 4k signal between multiple GPU's.
Adobe for example is a very hacky company, their software covers too much ground, from Web Development to Graphics to Editorial... Without a cohesive methodology to use all computers hardware to it's fullest in both the CPU and GPU, we have some very underutilized hardware. Adobe Premiere lags in a lot of areas not because of hardware, but because Adobe can't keep up with the coding.
Final Cut Pro X is fast because Apple is trying to use 90% to 100% of the CPU and GPU available, they only have a few hardware configurations to worry about, so in a lot of ways they have a clear advantage. I would say Adobe doesn't have enough full time Premiere or After Effects coders to keep up with all the hardware advancements coming from intel, Nvidia and now AMD.
Final Cut Pro X isn't faster because of AMD making great hardware, but because of APPLE making better software. If the VEGA dominates in Final Cut Pro X it is because of Apple not AMD.