RealityCapture, like other photogrammetry applications, is built to take a batch of photographs and turn them into digital, 3D models. The algorithms used during that process are designed to be “out of core”, meaning that not all of the data has to be loaded into system memory (RAM) at the same time – allowing for full processing without requiring a ton of available memory. Having more RAM can still be beneficial, though, so we decided to test how much impact it has on performance.
Pix4D is an advanced photogrammetry application, suited to a wide range of uses, with a focus on handling images captured by drone cameras. Processing of those images into point clouds and 3D meshes/textures is time-consuming, heavily using a computer’s CPU and GPU. We have recently updated our benchmark tools for Pix4D, and published articles looking at CPU and GPU performance on version 4.3 – but in the midst of our testing, 4.4 was released. Is it any faster?
Over the last couple of years, several new vulnerabilities have been found in modern microprocessor architectures. Many of these have been related to speculative execution techniques used across most of Intel’s product line, and a patch was released for Windows 10 last week which was intended to address some of those weaknesses. Unfortunately, it has also reduced performance in some applications – which this article will demonstrate by comparing processing speed in three photogrammetry programs before and after the update.
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.