7 ms·

I've seen at least a couple of papers before with similar claims, and still nothing I can run on my phone, so I'm not holding my breath yet. It seems a bit dis

I've seen at least a couple of papers before with similar claims, and still nothing I can run on my phone, so I'm not holding my breath yet. It seems a bit disingenuous to compare with Stable Diffusion taking 50 steps, though; with the newer schedulers you can consistently get great images in 12 steps of diffusion, probably less if you're a bit careful with exact parameters/model fine tuning choice.

sdflhasjd 3y ago
Steps isn't an apples-to-apples comparison though because some schedulers have longer steps (time-wise) than others.
- renonce 3y ago
  At least let’s compare quality within the same amount of time, regardless of steps.
  - MattRix 3y ago
    The first graph on the page compares the quality of it, showing that it has higher quality results despite taking only 2 seconds vs results from Stable Diffusion that take 1.4 minutes.
lukasb 3y ago
What newer schedulers?