# An Image-Retrieval Method Based on Cross-Hardware Platform Features
## 4 Results
### Decode Comparison  
As can be observed from Tables 4-6, compared with the Atlas 300V hard and CPU soft decoding, the TeslaT4 hard decoded more than 99% of the image with a decoding pixel maximum difference of +1/\(-\)1. The decoding success rate of software decoding is obviously higher than that of hardware decoding. Compared with Atlas 300V hard decoding, the proportion of TeslaT4 hard decoding images with the maximum difference of pixels over 100 is 0.17%. In addition, the test results on different hardware are shown in Figure 7, where the decoding maximum pixel difference is more than 100. Therefore, after hardware decoding fails, software decoding can be used instead, thereby improving the decoding success rate. The above decoding comparison experiment mainly uses JPG image for comparison.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Platform**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dataset**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Number of Images**} & **Number of Feature** & **Feature Extraction Success Rate (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Atlas 300V} & Query & 41,788 & 41,614 & 99.58 \\  & Gallery & 277,440 & 276,495 & 99.66 \\  & Interference & 101,664 & 97,925 & 96.32 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TeslaT4} & Query & 41,788 & 41,613 & 99.58 \\  & Gallery & 277,440 & 276,500 & 99.66 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Interference & 101,664 & 97,969 & 96.36 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Statistics of successful feature extraction.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Similarity Threshold** & **TopN** & **Query** & **Gallery** & **Recall (\%)** & **mAP (\%)** \\ \hline
0.3 & 200 & TeslaT4 & TeslaT4 & 96.32 & 83.12 \\
0.3 & 200 & Atlas 300V & Atlas 300V & 96.25 & 82.90 \\
0.3 & 200 & TeslaT4 & Atlas 300V & 96.28 & 82.99 \\
0.3 & 200 & Atlas 300V & TeslaT4 & 96.29 & 83.03 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of feature retrieval on different hardware.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Decode Type** & **Number of Test Images** & **Decode Success Rate** \\ \hline Tesla74 hard & 28w & 98.20\% \\ Atlas 300V hard & 28w & 97.26\% \\ CPU soft & 28w & 99.75\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Comparison of decoding abilities.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Atlas 300V} \\ \hline Quality factor & Image 1 & Image 2 & Image 3 \\  & (200w pixel) & (200w pixel) & (200w pixel) \\ \hline
90 & 619 KB & 602 KB & 582 KB \\ \hline
95 & 848 KB & 824 KB & 799 KB \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{TeslaT4} \\ \hline Quality factor & Image 1 & Image 2 & Image 3 \\  & (200w pixel) & (200w pixel) & (200w pixel) \\ \hline
75 & 350 KB & 328 KB & 335 KB \\ \hline
90 & 561 KB & 527 KB & 534 KB \\ \hline
95 & 802 KB & 751 KB & 763 KB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: The effect of coding quality factor on image storage.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Decode Compare** & **Number of Test Images** & **Pixel Difference 111** & **Pixel Difference 111** \\  & & **(Image)** & **(Pixel)** \\ \hline Tesla74 hard vs. & 28w & 99.82\% & 96.27\% \\ Atlas 300V hard & 28w & 99.65\% & 95.36\% \\ \hline Atlas 300V hard & 28w & 99.99\% & 99.98\% \\ Vs. CPU soft & 28w & 99.99\% & 99.98\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Decoding difference. (image) indicates comparison by image, (pixel) indicates comparison by pixel.  
Figure 7: Test results on different hardware, where the maximum pixel difference is more than 100. X hard indicates the hard decoding of X platform, and X det indicates the detection result of X platform.