Performance YOLOv7 vs YOLOv9 Series using TensorRT engine

[levipereira]

Perfomance Test using GPU RTX 4090 on AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core/ 16GB RAM

Model Performance using TensorRT engine

All models were sourced from the original repository and subsequently converted to ONNX format with dynamic batching enabled. Profiling was conducted using TensorRT Engine Explorer (TREx).

Detailed reports will be made available in the coming days, providing comprehensive insights into the performance metrics and optimizations achieved.

All models were converted (re-parameterized) and optimized for inference.

TensorRT version: 8.6.1

Device Properties:

• Selected Device: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090
• Compute Capability: 8.9
• SMs: 128.0
• Compute Clock Rate: 2.58 GHz
• Device Global Memory: 24208 MiB
• Shared Memory per SM: 100 KiB
• Memory Bus Width: 384.0 bits
• Memory Clock Rate: 10.501 GHz

YOLO v7 vs v9 Series Models Performance Results

• Average time: Represents the total sum of layer latencies when profiling layers individually.
• Latency: Refers to the minimum, maximum, mean, median, and 99th percentile of the engine latency measurements, captured without profiling layers.
• Throughput: Measured in inferences per second (IPS).

Performance Summary Tables

Throughput and Average Time

Model Name	Throughput (IPS)	Average Time (ms)
YOLOv7	978	1.441
YOLOv7x	609	2.065
YOLOv9-c	798	2.049
YOLOv9-e	353	4.261

Latency Summary

Model Name	Min Latency (ms)	Max Latency (ms)	Mean Latency (ms)	Median Latency (ms)	99th Percentile Latency (ms)
YOLOv7	1.012	1.104	1.020	1.018	1.024
YOLOv7x	1.613	1.751	1.640	1.636	1.664
YOLOv9-c	1.246	1.359	1.251	1.250	1.251
YOLOv9-e	2.807	3.032	2.823	2.814	2.817

Full Report
https://github.com/levipereira/triton-server-yolo/tree/master/perfomance

[WongKinYiu]

@levipereira
Thanks for provide TRT performance reports.
I notice that you use yolov9-c.pt for exporting and testing performance.
In actually, yolov9-c.pt contains PGI auxiliary branch, which can be removed at inference stage.
Could you help for using yolov9-c-converted.pt and yolov9-e-converted.pt to get more performance reports?
Their architectures are as same as gelan-c.pt and gelan-e.pt respectively.

The converted weights are provided at here.
yolov9-c-converted.pt
yolov9-e-converted.pt

[WongKinYiu]

https://github.com/levipereira/yolov9/blob/main/models/experimental.py#L140

output = output[0] will gets output of auxiliary branch.
output = output[1] will gets output of main branch, which is correct one.

[levipereira]

https://github.com/levipereira/yolov9/blob/main/models/experimental.py#L140

output = output[0] will gets output of auxiliary branch. output = output[1] will gets output of main branch, which is correct one.

#130 (comment)

[laugh12321]

Perfomance Test using GPU RTX 2080Ti 2GB on AMD Ryzen 7 5700X 8-Core/ 128GB RAM

All models are converted to ONNX models with the EfficientNMS plugin. The conversion was done using the TensoRT-YOLO tool, with the trtyolo CLI tool installed via pip install tensorrt-yolo==3.0.1. The batch size is 1 and the image size is 640.

Model Export and Performance Testing

Use the following commands to export the model and perform performance testing with trtexec:

trtyolo export -v yolov9 -w yolov9-converted.pt --imgsz 640 -o ./
trtexec --onnx=yolov9-converted.onnx --saveEngine=yolov9-converted.engine --fp16
trtexec --fp16 --avgRuns=1000 --useSpinWait --loadEngine=yolov9-converted.engine

Performance testing was conducted using the TensorRT-YOLO inference on the coco128 dataset.

YOLOv9 Series

Tool	YOLOv9-T-Converted	YOLOv9-S-Converted	YOLOv9-M-Converted	YOLOv9-C-Converted	YOLOv9-E-Converted
trtexec (infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 3.51857	Mean Latency (ms) 3.67899	Mean Latency (ms) 4.19460	Mean Latency (ms) 4.25964	Mean Latency (ms) 8.95429
TensorRT-YOLO Python (infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 10.19576	Mean Latency (ms) 10.15226	Mean Latency (ms) 9.29918	Mean Latency (ms) 9.60093	Mean Latency (ms) 21.85042
TensorRT-YOLO C++ (pre + infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 3.44162	Mean Latency (ms) 3.66080	Mean Latency (ms) 4.10519	Mean Latency (ms) 4.12471	Mean Latency (ms) 8.98964

Tool	Gelan-S2	Gelan-S	Gelan-M	Gelan-C	Gelan-E
trtexec (infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 3.42082	Mean Latency (ms) 3.78578	Mean Latency (ms) 4.16447	Mean Latency (ms) 4.27485	Mean Latency (ms) 8.91479
TensorRT-YOLO Python (infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 9.96435	Mean Latency (ms) 10.35934	Mean Latency (ms) 9.14044	Mean Latency (ms) 9.33843	Mean Latency (ms) 21.42764
TensorRT-YOLO C++ (pre + infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 3.60857	Mean Latency (ms) 3.93528	Mean Latency (ms) 4.25084	Mean Latency (ms) 4.35533	Mean Latency (ms) 9.23654

YOLOv8 Series

Tool	YOLOv8n	YOLOv8s	YOLOv8m	YOLOv8l	YOLOv8x
trtexec (infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 1.90273	Mean Latency (ms) 2.34166	Mean Latency (ms) 3.58595	Mean Latency (ms) 4.83306	Mean Latency (ms) 7.12179
TensorRT-YOLO Python (infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 7.03217	Mean Latency (ms) 7.52751	Mean Latency (ms) 8.75298	Mean Latency (ms) 10.56914	Mean Latency (ms) 12.45605
TensorRT-YOLO C++ (pre + infer)	Mean Latency (ms) 2.02848	Mean Latency (ms) 2.15021	Mean Latency (ms) 3.57631	Mean Latency (ms) 4.78318	Mean Latency (ms) 6.96686

[levipereira]

Hi @WongKinYiu,
I apologize for the delay in responding; my work has been taking up a lot of my time. I'm deeply involved in assessing the performance of YOLOv9. I've managed to gather some valuable performance information comparing YOLOv9 to YOLOv7. I'll be sharing these findings in the next few days. I'm sending a more detailed report and need to highlight the differences accurately.

The original post had results from many variables that shouldn't have been included in measuring the model's performance. That's why I made changes to the original post.

[WongKinYiu]

@laugh12321

Could you help for testing speed of yolov9-t-converted.pt, yolov9-s-converted.pt, yolov9-m-converted.pt?

Thanks.

[laugh12321]

@laugh12321

Could you help for testing speed of yolov9-t-converted.pt, yolov9-s-converted.pt, yolov9-m-converted.pt?

Thanks.

@WongKinYiu Use trtexec or Trnsorrt-YOLO to test the model speed with NMS plugin?

[WongKinYiu]

Same testing method as the table #143 (comment).
Are these results tested with NMS plugin?
Thanks.

[laugh12321]

@WongKinYiu Yes, these results were tested with the NMS plugin. In #143 (comment), we performed performance testing using the Python code of TensorRT-YOLO. We noticed that the results from the Python code were slightly lower compared to the tests conducted with the C++ code and the trtexec tool. To provide a more comprehensive comparison, we will conduct separate performance tests using the TensorRT-YOLO Python API, the TensorRT-YOLO C++ API, and the trtexec tool.

[WongKinYiu]

If it won't bother you too much, conduct performance tests using different protocols are nice.

[laugh12321]

@WongKinYiu Update at #143 (comment)

[WongKinYiu]

Thanks.

It seems you have same results as @levipereira.
yolov9-m has similar speed as yolov9-c.
and yolov9 t/s/m are very slow on tensorrt yolo python.

[WongKinYiu]

Could you help for test gelan-s2.pt too?
Thanks.

[laugh12321]

Could you help for test gelan-s2.pt too? Thanks.

@WongKinYiu Update at #143 (comment)

[WongKinYiu]

Thanks.

By the way, gelan-s2.pt is different from gelan-s.pt.
gelan-s2 stack 2 blocks in csp, while gelan-s stack 3 blocks in csp.

[laugh12321]

Thanks.

By the way, gelan-s2.pt is different from gelan-s.pt. gelan-s2 stack 2 blocks in csp, while gelan-s stack 3 blocks in csp.

@WongKinYiu Thank you very much for your reminder. I overlooked gelan-s2.pt and will update it shortly. Thanks again for your correction!

[laugh12321]

Thanks.
By the way, gelan-s2.pt is different from gelan-s.pt. gelan-s2 stack 2 blocks in csp, while gelan-s stack 3 blocks in csp.

@WongKinYiu Thank you very much for your reminder. I overlooked gelan-s2.pt and will update it shortly. Thanks again for your correction!

@WongKinYiu Update at #143 (comment)

[WongKinYiu]

Thanks.