You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
however, the result said that it need 120ms to process per frame. I wonder that 1. RTX4090 is faster than RTX3090, why it seems slower than that mentioned in the paper. 2. Does the model training use pseudo points generation again or it only use the already generated pseudo points. If it will not generate the pseudo points again, for my machine, the pseudo points generation costs 80ms per frame. So the total processing time is 200ms(120+80) on my machine?
Hoping for your reply. And the performance of your work is amazing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The speed in the paper is mostly detection only (since the PENet reports a very fast speed, but now I also notice that it is not correct) and evaluated under two-stage refinements (RPN+2refine). This released code uses (RPN+3refine), so it is slightly slower than paper. Besides, the speed is also related to the CPU, as some operations such as multiple transformations are done on the CPU. Note that, using 2refine may lead to decreased performance. So additional parameter tuning is required.
The speed in the paper is mostly detection only (since the PENet reports a very fast speed, but now I also notice that it is not correct) and evaluated under two-stage refinements (RPN+2refine). This released code uses (RPN+3refine), so it is slightly slower than paper. Besides, the speed is also related to the CPU, as some operations such as multiple transformations are done on the CPU. Note that, using 2refine may lead to decreased performance. So additional parameter tuning is required.
Thank for your reply, I further find it is the CPU burden that causes the difference in detection speed. I test it again on the same sample for 10000 times(without CPU-intensive dataloading process). And the average inference time is 67.35ms, I think this inference time sounds reasonable compared to RTX3090.
I use single RTX4090 for testing the inference speed, after generating the depth map, I run the following command.
and I use the following code(only part code) to test the inference speed.
however, the result said that it need 120ms to process per frame. I wonder that 1. RTX4090 is faster than RTX3090, why it seems slower than that mentioned in the paper. 2. Does the model training use pseudo points generation again or it only use the already generated pseudo points. If it will not generate the pseudo points again, for my machine, the pseudo points generation costs 80ms per frame. So the total processing time is 200ms(120+80) on my machine?
Hoping for your reply. And the performance of your work is amazing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: