Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

When I set the same data and environment and run test.py, why is yolov3 faster than yolov5? #3246

Closed
LEEGILJUN opened this issue May 19, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3276
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@LEEGILJUN
Copy link

❔Question

The basic hyper parameters and environment were not changed. and same image
batch-size : 1
image size : 800x800
image : gray scaled Satellite image
Number of objects : 7
pretrained : coco2017 by yolov3 and v5
code : ultralytics pytorch code for v3 and v5

result
yolov3 : 40.7/1.4/42.2 ms inference/NMS/total
yolov5 : 71.8/1.2/73.0 ms inference/NMS/total

mAP
yolov3 : 0.707, 0.436
yolov5 : 0.785, 0.552

Additional context

When I studied the yolo series, I think that v5 should be faster than v3 not only in performance but also in inference speed. And I did several experiments by k-folding the data currently in use. But the result was always yolov3 faster. Other kinds of data were the same when I did the experiment. I would like to know why this is happening.

@LEEGILJUN LEEGILJUN added the question Further information is requested label May 19, 2021
@glenn-jocher
Copy link
Member

@LEEGILJUN that's not correct. Our YOLOv3 README table has a direct comparison between YOLOv3 and YOLOv5, and YOLOv5 exceeds YOLOv3 in every metric, including speed, size, FLOPS, parameters, mAP, etc.
https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov3#pretrained-checkpoints

Pretrained Checkpoints

Model size
(pixels)
mAPval
0.5:0.95
mAPtest
0.5:0.95
mAPval
0.5
Speed
V100 (ms)
params
(M)
FLOPS
640 (B)
YOLOv3-tiny 640 17.6 17.6 34.8 1.2 8.8 13.2
YOLOv3 640 43.3 43.3 63.0 4.1 61.9 156.3
YOLOv3-SPP 640 44.3 44.3 64.6 4.1 63.0 157.1
YOLOv5l 640 48.2 48.2 66.9 3.7 47.0 115.4

@glenn-jocher glenn-jocher linked a pull request May 21, 2021 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants