Agisoft Metashape CPU Performance: Intel Core X-10000 vs AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen

Introduction

For years, choosing between Intel and AMD processors has been relatively straight forward. Intel held a strong lead in per-core performance, and combined with a moderate number of cores that gave their processors an edge in lightly to moderately threaded applications. AMD excelled in pure core count, making them great for heavily threaded workloads, but with lower per-core performance and architectural design limitations that led to poor results in some situations. This changed quite a bit on the consumer side when AMD launched their 3rd gen Ryzen CPUs, but still held true when it came to the HEDT (High End Desktop) processors from both brands.

Now, both Intel and AMD are launching new HEDT processors that have the potential to shake things up dramatically!

On Intel's side, the new Core X-10000 series processors are only slightly faster than the previous generation – but Intel has cut their prices nearly in half. For example, while the MSRP of the Core i9 9980XE was $1,979 the new Core i9 10980XE is just $979.

On AMD's side, the new Threadripper 3rd Gen CPUs are actually a little more expensive than earlier models (by $100-200) but their raw performance is expected to be quite a bit better. The gains are not in core count, though, but rather in clock speed, performance per core, and architectural improvements which eliminate some bottlenecks that the first and second generation Threadripper CPUs had.

For this article we are taking a look at how these new processors compare against each other, the previous generation they are replacing, and their mainstream desktop counterparts. The focus is on photogrammetry processing in Agisoft Metashape, using a benchmark tool we developed here at Puget Systems. More info about this utility is available in the Benchmark Details.

If you would prefer to skip over our test setup and benchmark sections, feel free to jump straight to the Conclusion.

Test Hardware

We only have one license for Metashape Pro at this time, the full benchmark run takes several hours, and I prefer to run it more than once per system to filter out any abnormal results. As such, I was not able to test as many CPUs as I would have liked.

Here are the specifications of the different platforms that I was able to use for my testing:

A quick note about memory specifications: the latest CPUs from AMD and Intel support varying speeds of RAM depending on how many modules are installed. In past articles we've sometimes tested at multiple speeds, but to help keep things more uniform going forward we are standardizing on the speed that each processor / platform supports when all memory slots are used (even if we aren't filling them completely for our testing). Along with using the same total RAM capacity, that should help to keep results fair and consistent.

Benchmark Details

For benchmarking photogrammetry applications we now have four image sets that we own the rights to, covering both smaller and larger size Model and Map projects. The smaller image sets are included in our public Metashape benchmark, which you can download and run if you want to compare your system's performance to what we measured in our testing.

• Rock Model – 36 photos at 20 megapixels each
• School Map – 51 photos at 18 megapixels each
• School Model – 439 photos at 18 megapixels each
• Park Map – 792 photos at 18 megapixels each

Benchmark Results

There is a lot going on in the chart below, so before getting into it here is a reference key for the color scheme:

• Light blue = Intel consumer CPUs (9th Gen Core series)
• Dark blue = Intel HEDT CPUs (X-9000 series)
• Dark blue with glow – NEW Intel HEDT CPUs (X-10000 series)
• Light red = AMD consumer CPUs (Ryzen 3rd Gen)
• Dark red = AMD HEDT CPUs (Threadripper 2nd Gen)
• Dark red with glow – NEW AMD HEDT CPUs (Threadripper 3rd Gen)

Analysis

As expected, Intel's new Core X 10980XE is on-par with the previous 9980XE – but at half the price. That would be good news if either of those processors performed well in Metashape, but there is something about the way this software works which causes the Core X line to perform poorly.

Whatever that is, it also appears to affect the Threadripper line. AMD's new 3rd Gen chips are far better than their predecessors, shaving 25-35% off the processing time compared to the 2990WX, but they still lag behind AMD's more mainstream Ryzen CPUs.

I have seen performance like this before, which is why our standard Metashape recommended system has been a mainstream Core i9 for a long time now – and will remain on that CPU for the time being. I had assumed it was a problem with core count, but now I am re-thinking that because the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X does not seem to have the same performance problem that Intel's 18-core chips exhibit. I plan to investigate this in more detail, when I have time, looking at a wider range of processors, testing the impact of SMT, etc.

Is Intel X Series or AMD Threadripper 3rd Gen CPUs better for Metashape?

Neither of these processor lines are a good fit for Metashape at this time. For most users either Intel's Core i9 9900K or one of AMD's Ryzen 9 processors will be a much better choice, as they provide the best performance in Metashape as of version 1.5.5.