PhotoScan makes heavy use of the central processor (CPU) in a computer to run many of the calculations involved in turning still images into a 3D model or map. Different steps in that process utilize the CPU in various ways, though, with both clock speed and core count coming into play. Let’s see how the new 9th Gen Intel Core processors perform compared to existing Intel and AMD chips.
Lighroom Classic CC saw dramatic performance improvements with higher core count CPUs, but the 2990WX in particular has a staggering 32 cores. Will Lightroom Classic be able to take advantage of these extremely high core counts, or we have reached the point of diminishing returns?
DaVinci Resolve is a very GPU-intensive program, but it can still require a powerful CPU to match the amount of GPU power you may put into your system. We have seen diminishing returns with higher core count CPUs in the past, so the question is whether the 32 cores in the Threadripper 2990WX will increase performance or if you are better off with a lower core count CPU.
In the past, AMD’s Threadripper CPUs have fared very well in Premiere Pro, but fell behind their Intel counterparts by the slimmest of margins. With the new 32 core Threadripper 2990WX and 16 core 2950X, will AMD finally overtake Intel as the best value for Premiere Pro users?
Photoshop is definitely not the target market for AMD’s new Threadripper 2990WX 32 Core or 2950X 16 core CPUs, but even so we wanted to see how it stacks up against the previous generation Threadripper CPUs as well as a number of Intel Core i7/i9 CPUs.
For several years, After Effects has not performed very well with high core count CPUs – instead favoring processors that have higher per-core performance. This means that while AMD’s new Threadripper CPUs like the 2990WX and 2950X are very impressive in some applications, they shouldn’t be terribly great for After Effects compared to their Intel counterparts.
PhotoScan makes heavy use of both the central processors (CPUs) in a computer and the video cards (GPUs) to run many of the calculations involved in turning still images into a 3D model or map. Agisoft, the makers of PhotoScan, have versions available for both Windows and macOS – so let’s take a look at how these two, competing computer platforms compare.
PhotoScan makes heavy use of both the central processors (CPUs) in a computer and the video cards (GPUs) to run many of the calculations involved in turning still images into a 3D model or map. Intel’s new Xeon Scalable processors offer configurations with dozens of CPU cores, as well as the ability to support multiple GPUs – so let’s see how they perform in PhotoScan.
PhotoScan makes heavy use of the central processor (CPU) in a computer to run many of the calculations involved in turning still images into a 3D model or map. Different steps in that process utilize the CPU in various ways, though, so we are looking at how several Intel and AMD processors compare in this application.
PhotoScan makes use of both the CPU and GPUs (video cards) in a computer, during different steps of the photogrammetry workflow. One of the configuration options within this program also allows the CPU to be utilized during steps that are primarily performed on the GPU – and it is enabled by default. However, we have found in our testing that this option usually hampers performance more than it helps!
Puget Systems builds custom workstations, servers and storage solutions tailored for your work.
We provide:
Extensive performance testing
making you more productive and giving better value for your money
Reliable computers
with fewer crashes means more time working & less time waiting
Support that understands
your complex workflows and can get you back up & running ASAP
A proven track record
as shown by our case studies and customer testimonials
