[TestReport] Comparing different PCs running Locators

Information and discussion regarding the ACE PackXpert software

[TestReport] Comparing different PCs running Locators

Postby TravisA » Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:00 pm

  • Experimentally determine the processing capabilities of various PCs in the lab by executing identical vision operations and recording the execution time of each.

    --The test setup in this test is nearly identical to the previous test ("Comparing different PCs running blobfinders"). The same machines are being tested. The major difference is that 4 cameras instead of 2 are connected, and Locator tools are being used instead of Blob Analyzer tools.

    Machines Tested:
  • “Laptop” – Dell Latitude D810. Windows XP, 1.73GHz Pentium M processor, 2GB RAM, using an ADSTech PCMCIA 1394 adaptor. This machine has various other software installed and running (such as nfs server, RealVNC, VirusScan, etc)
  • “Matrox” – Matrox 4Sight M compact PC. Windows XP Embedded, 1.3GHz Celeron processor, 1GB RAM, built-in 1394b. This is a recently deployed PC, with very little other software installed or running
  • “Pentium4” – Generic Desktop PC. Windows XP, 3.0GHz Pentium4 processor (with HyperThreading), PCI 1394 adaptor. This machine has various other software installed and running (such as nfs server, RealVNC, VirusScan, etc)
  • “LittlePC” – AOpen mini PC MP965-D. Windows XP, 2.4GHz Pentium Core2Duo, 2GB RAM, built in 1394a. This is a recently deployed PC, with very little other software installed or running (but RealVNC server was running at the time)

    Hardware Setup:
  • 4 Basler 1394 cameras, mounted on a stand. The cameras are connected by 1394 FireWire to a Belkin 5-port FireWire hub. The hub is then connected by a FireWire cable to the PC being tested. The cameras, images, lighting, and results are all maintained between tests, so each machine is testing the same image. This way there should be no differences in image acquisition time. The only difference in hardware setup is the Matrox PC does not have a standard 1394a connector, so a 1394b to 1394a cable was used between the PC and the hub.

    Software Setup:
  • Each PC had Adept ACE version installed with all of its underlying requirements: HexSight 3.4, DirectX 9.0c, .NET Framework 2.0, Sentinel Protection (license dongle)
    The same ACE Workspace was used on every system for consistency. The workspace has no controller or robot object. Each camera has an associated virtual camera, a Locator tool, and a Locator Model. A C# program object in the ACE workspace runs the locator tool 100 times, and records the start and end time of each operation. Identical C# programs run the second, third, and fourth tools, doing the same thing. A test C# program starts the previous four programs at basically the same time.

  • Each system was loaded, one at a time, and connected to the cameras. The test program was run, and all the data logged and stored. The cameras were kept in the same position, with the same lighting, and same objects in the field of view.
    Before testing, the Basler Pylon Viewer was used to ensure the camera settings were identical: in Acquisition settings, the Exposure Time is set to 500; in Transport Layer, the Packet Size is set to 1024.

  • Locator tools are more processor-intensive than Blob Analyzer tools, so the results showed a significant variation based on processor power. Additionally since 4 tools were being run simultaneously, the PC’s ability to multitask was truly tested. Because of that, the “littlePC” was fastest by a large margin.
    The execution time of each of the 4 locator tools was logged, then an average was taken for each tool on each PC. The first data point was thrown away, as sometimes the first execution contains some preprocessing or planning time. The “Overall Average” is obtained by averaging the 4 tools’ average time. This is the number used here for comparison.
    Overall Average:
    miniPC 291 msec
    p4 700 msec
    laptop 891 msec
    matrox 1212 msec

    Compared to the miniPC, the Pentium4 was 140% slower, the laptop 206% slower, and the matrox PC 316% slower.
    LocatorTest_graph1.jpg (27.16 KiB) Viewed 9426 times

    Looking at the individual tool averages, the results are consistent. Due to basic differences in the image (FOV size, lighting, part density, etc) each tool took a different amount of time, and the differences are similar on each machine:

    LocatorTest_graph2.jpg (63.53 KiB) Viewed 9426 times

Return to ACE PackXpert

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest