Skip to content
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.

macOS vs Windows

This page summarizes how PIX4Dmatic 2.10.0 performs on three different machines:

  • Windows workstation

  • Mac Studio

  • Mac mini

For more information related to the hardware recommendations, read the following article: Recommended hardware - PIX4Dmatic

Our goal is to understand whether the Mac Studio is a viable alternative to our current Windows setup for typical photogrammetry workflows, and where each platform has clear strengths or weaknesses.

Across the representative set of projects, the overall processing duration demonstrates that the Mac Studio is highly competitive against Windows, achieving equivalent and even slightly faster execution times on larger projects.

Overall processing duration (Windows)-1

However, when breaking down the workflow into individual steps, a more detailed picture of the performance emerges: 

  • Calibration: Windows and the Mac Studio demonstrate vastly superior performance compared to the Mac Mini, which consistently requires significantly longer processing durations across all scenarios 

    Calibration-1

  • Densification: performance is essentially the same on both platforms. Windows and Mac Studio operate almost on par, showing total parity in the workload. 

    Densification-1

  • Mesh: Similar to densification, processing times are very even between Windows and Mac Studio, with neither platform standing out significantly.

    Mesh-1

  • Digital Surface M: The Mac Studio shows a clear and consistent advantage, processing notably faster than Windows across all evaluated projects.

    DSM-1
  • Orthomosaic: The strong trend observed in DSM continues; the Mac Studio is faster and more efficient than Windows in generating orthomosaics across the projects.

    Ortho-1
  • Mac mini: This platform is not a competitive option for these workflows. It is consistently the slowest across every processing stage and in overall runtime, indicating that it does not provide the performance needed for projects of this scale.

In conclusion, these results show that the Mac Studio is a strong hardware choice for these workflows. It matches Windows overall and outperforms it in several stages, particularly calibration, DSM generation, and orthomosaic processing. Densification and mesh performance remain effectively the same on both platforms. By contrast, the Mac mini does not provide the level of performance required for intensive professional workloads.