Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I am using OpenCV DFT in mobiles and tablets, let’s say ARM devices. The codes are in C++. I was expecting to be able to optimize FFT performance by using ARM registers and fixed point arithmetics, but I only manage to get double time than OpenCV, not even the same time.
I use RADIX-4 256-point FFT.
Does anybody know what OpenCV does and why is it so difficult to optimize? Which is the fastest FFT algorithm for ARM devices? radix-4, radix-8, 256 points, 1024…
The implementation of OpenCV uses device-specific optimizations on Tegra, Tegra 2, and Tegra 3 devices. On Tegra and Tegra 2 the implementation is parallelized and some operations use GLSL shaders to accelerate on the GPU; on Tegra 3 it also uses NEON SIMD instructions for vectorizing some operations on CPU, and CUDA for even better GPU performance. Given that NVidia leant manpower to the optimization effort, using their in-depth knowledge of the platform, outperforming it for more than the odd uncommon operation would probably be a big task.
This article is mostly Tegra 3 specific, but talks a lot about the kind of techniques they used and the performance speedup they got over optimized but device-independent code.