I have been testing Reality Capture just a bit. Unfortunately I can only currently test it using Windows 10 in a Parallels virtual environment so I have not tested anything beyond alignment. However, learning how good the alignment and subsequent camera calibration is really my biggest curiosity/concern.
Everyone seems to think that RC is faster for alignment but I am not so certain. I believe that by default the alignment is done using down sampled images. At least half the original size, perhaps even more. If you do an alignment using PhotoScan at Medium or Low I believe you will see nearly the same speed increase. With that speed of course there is a compromise. The camera calibration will never be as good as is possible on High. I of course am a stickler for the highest quality camera calibration as that is the single biggest source of error for a photogrammetry solution. Meshing of course will always be faster if CUDA is available and RC may very well be faster at meshing than PhotoScan and others but I cannot test that currently. I would be very interested in any testing that others might do.
That is not to say that RC is not good. I think it is quite good and fast. I am not sure it is better than what is already available but it is too early to tell. It will be interesting once they announce pricing. Of course PhotoScan is available and runs well on Macs which is a big deal for me. It will also be interesting to see if RC becomes available on something other than Windows and without the CUDA requirement.
I hope to do more testing before the end of the trial period but there never seems to be enough time. The interface is a bit different. A little more black box than I would like. It seems a little difficult to figure out what is really going on and how to make sure of the quality of the results.
If anyone else does some testing, please send some feedback.