Most of software on market doesn't support OpenCL. ROCm worked quite well, but again AMD decide not to invest into software.

People were (rightfully) complaining about OpenCL the most because of applications like Blender, so it's not surprising they highlighted it. Since the OpenCL implementation on question is built on ROCm, it may be that other ROCm-related stuff works as well.

My impression from the various comments left by devs on Phoronix and elsewhere is that they've just managed to right the boat on the GPU side of things and are getting enough from their enterprise/HPC offerings (which they were solely focused on, to the detriment of all us consumers) to have some bandwidth to start tackling consumer compute support. I really hope they do so, because all the ROCm ecosystem could use some major TLC. Who knows, maybe this time next year you'll be able to install PyTorch with AMD GPU support OOTB.

One big reason why I buy AMD hardware is John Bridgman who actively participate in discussions about their hardware and drivers as well as long-term vision toward open source. So I believed in AMD and supported them for years (and actually made nice profit on their shares growth).

To be honest I don't really need compute all that much other than for my own hobby projects. And for gaming I only play few games what suite my taste as well as tons of older or indie games that would work on any GPU. So why not, AMD open source drivers are decent anyway.

Unfortunately it's hard to really recommend AMD GPUs when it's come to the real world experience. Modern gamers actually want all these lock-in features even if Nvidia gonna abandon them in couple of years. Then people who need compute for their work just want their software to work and it's simply too much of mess on non-Nvidia hardware.