> Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof, I don’t even see a README.

Im confused. The link points to Github which literally shows the README on the front page.

> Is the resolution 64x64 or 1028x1028

From the readme: cnn (CPU, 128x96) 2.35ms 425.95 0.64ms 1562.10

> 1500FPS on what hardware

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700 CPU @ 3.6GHz.

I could go on, but literally the answers to your questions are in the README that you somehow didnt see.

For reference, just saying the CPU isn’t exactly what I meant. However, I do see some of it’s there.

What I’m pointing out is that generally this is a very loose claim. 1500FPS is for a very specific problem, on a rig that is still not defined, using images that are similarly not defined.

What’s the RAM, IO speed, what type of images, etc. Comparing to other methods on the same rig solves that.

Again, I see your point, but I was generally pointing out that the analysis or claims of this nature are not clean or clear.

It's even more meaningless once you realize that you can get arbitrary FPS just by running multiple programs side-by-side.

Indeed, kinda what I mean by “hardware”. If I have 120 CPUs and 8 GPUs, personally I’d expect it faster. Face detection is super paralleliazable

You guys are silly, it's in the readme. But you're right, total click bait title. At reasonable resolution it's like 60FPS.