HackerPapers

arXiv:1511.06435cs.LG

Comparative Study of Deep Learning Software Frameworks

Soheil Bahrampour, Naveen Ramakrishnan, Lukas Schott, Mohak Shah

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Deep learning methods have resulted in significant performance improvements in several application domains and as such several software frameworks have been developed to facilitate their implementation. This paper presents a comparative study of five deep learning frameworks, namely Caffe, Neon, TensorFlow, Theano, and Torch, on three aspects: extensibility, hardware utilization, and speed. The study is performed on several types of deep learning architectures and we evaluate the performance of the above frameworks when employed on a single machine for both (multi-threaded) CPU and GPU (Nvidia Titan X) settings. The speed performance metrics used here include the gradient computation time, which is important during the training phase of deep networks, and the forward time, which is important from the deployment perspective of trained networks. For convolutional networks, we also report how each of these frameworks support various convolutional algorithms and their corresponding performance. From our experiments, we observe that Theano and Torch are the most easily extensible frameworks. We observe that Torch is best suited for any deep architecture on CPU, followed by Theano. It also achieves the best performance on the GPU for large convolutional and fully connected networks, followed closely by Neon. Theano achieves the best performance on GPU for training and deployment of LSTM networks. Caffe is the easiest for evaluating the performance of standard deep architectures. Finally, TensorFlow is a very flexible framework, similar to Theano, but its performance is currently not competitive compared to the other studied frameworks.

arXiv comments
Submitted to KDD 2016 with TensorFlow results added. At the time of submission to KDD, TensorFlow was available only with cuDNN v.2 and thus its performance is reported with that version
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Apr 2016 to Apr 2016. Found in 2 HN submissions from Dec 2015 to May 2016. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • Since TensorFlow was dubbed as slower than most (http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06435) it'll be nice to see how this affects perceived performance

      therobot24View on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.