3 ms·
That second table is aa good example of why always including units (or even just a "higher is better") is a good idea... I have no clue what I'm looking at. Ed
by jakear 6y ago
That second table is aa good example of why always including units (or even just a "higher is better") is a good idea... I have no clue what I'm looking at.
Edit: It's been edited, thx Evolution :) (or I totally glossed over it the first time around... but I don't think so)
- zamadatix 6y ago"Training performance in images processed per second"?
- mamon 6y agoDo you mean this table which has a caption over it that reads "Training performance in images processed per second" ?? Looks pretty self-explanatory.
- Sayrus 6y agoPerhaps it has been edited. Now the table contains the following title "Training performance in images processed per second". A "Higher is better" might still be interesting although redundant.
- hughes 6y agoEven after being edited, it's still wrong. It shows the significantly lower Inception4 performance as a "40% speedup" instead of 40% of baseline images/sec.
- TomVDB 6y agoEven after the edit, it's a bit confusing in that, without looking at the table, you get the impression that FP16 is slower than FP32.