Add benchmarks against WDMassTagger
This commit is contained in:
parent
fd5e3bb166
commit
4131bc5d31
|
@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ The kernel panic was repeatable.
|
|||
|
||||
GPU inference
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
[cols="<,>,>", options=header]
|
||||
[cols="<2,>1,>1", options=header]
|
||||
|===
|
||||
|Model|Batch size|Time
|
||||
|DeepDanbooru|1|24 s
|
||||
|
@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ GPU inference
|
|||
|
||||
CPU inference
|
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||||
[cols="<,>,>", options=header]
|
||||
[cols="<2,>1,>1", options=header]
|
||||
|===
|
||||
|Model|Batch size|Time
|
||||
|DeepDanbooru|8|54 s
|
||||
|
@ -210,3 +210,19 @@ CPU inference
|
|||
|ML-Danbooru Caformer dec-5-97527|8|241 s
|
||||
|ML-Danbooru Caformer dec-5-97527|1|262 s
|
||||
|===
|
||||
|
||||
Comparison with WDMassTagger
|
||||
----------------------------
|
||||
Using CUDA, on the same Linux computer as above, on a sample of 6352 images.
|
||||
We're a bit slower, depending on the model.
|
||||
Batch sizes of 16 and 32 give practically equivalent results for both.
|
||||
|
||||
[cols="<,>,>,>", options="header,autowidth"]
|
||||
|===
|
||||
|Model|WDMassTagger|deeptagger (batch)|Ratio
|
||||
|wd-v1-4-convnext-tagger-v2 |1:18 |1:55 |68 %
|
||||
|wd-v1-4-convnextv2-tagger-v2 |1:20 |2:10 |62 %
|
||||
|wd-v1-4-moat-tagger-v2 |1:22 |1:52 |73 %
|
||||
|wd-v1-4-swinv2-tagger-v2 |1:28 |1:34 |94 %
|
||||
|wd-v1-4-vit-tagger-v2 |1:16 |1:22 |93 %
|
||||
|===
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue