[MINC-development] Welcome

[David Gobbi]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Steve ROBBINS wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 05:39:24PM -0500, Leila Baghdadi wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > It seems to me that minc1.0 is definitely faster than minc0.6 but still I
> > checked the performance of minc1.0 against VTK for warping images and VTK
> > is at least twice faster on my computer which has 2 Xeon 2 GHz cpus.
> > E.g. VTK can apply a thin-plate spline warp to an image around 2 or 3
> > times faster than minc1.0 can.
> >
> > The main reason for this because VTK is multi-threaded.
>
> Really?  So if you profile them on a single CPU machine, the
> MINC code is roughly as fast as the VTK code?  If so, I'm impressed:
> I thought it would be a lot slower.  Volume_io is riddled with switch
> statements (based on number type) that I thought would stall the
> CPU pipelining.

The comparison depends on interpolation mode, the type of warp that
is applied, whether the warp is applied in the forward or reverse
direction, CPU architecture, etc.  I am getting a tar file ready
that will contain a script and a set of data + transformations for
comprehensive benchmarking.  With luck I'll be able to release it
sometime this week.

I've seen some cases where minc & VTK run at the same speed, and
other cases where VTK is up to 9 times as fast and minc.  So VTK
is faster, but not miraculously so.

It would also be nice to see some ITK vs. minc benchmarks, if there
is an ITK analogue of mincresample.

 - David