PyTorch vs. TensorFlow: A Comprehensive Comparison in 2024¶
Note
Listen to a conversation based on this blog post. Tell us what you think about it.
When it comes to deep learning frameworks, PyTorch and TensorFlow are two of the most prominent tools in the field. Both have been widely adopted by researchers and developers alike, and while they share many similarities, they also have key differences that make them suitable for different use cases.
We thought this blog would be timely especially with the PyTorch 2024 Conference right around the corner.
In this blog, we’ll explore the main differences between PyTorch and TensorFlow across several dimensions such as ease of use, dynamic vs. static computation, ecosystem, deployment, community, and industry adoption. In a follow-on blog, we will describe how Rafay’s customers use both PyTorch and TensorFlow for their AI/ML projects.
Background¶
Before diving into the technical differences, it's essential to understand the background of both frameworks.
PyTorch was originally developed by Facebook’s AI Research lab (FAIR) and released in 2016. Since then, it has gained popularity rapidly, especially among researchers. It was designed with a focus on providing flexibility and ease of experimentation.
TensorFlow was created by the Google Brain team and released in 2015. It was one of the first frameworks that allowed developers to create, train, and deploy deep learning models at scale. In general, TensorFlow has had broader adoption because of Google's backing and its robust production-ready features.
While TensorFlow dominated in earlier years, PyTorch's momentum has caught up, particularly in the research community. PyTorch is also now governed by the Linux Foundation and benefits due to significant evangelism activities such as the PyTorch Conference.
Comparison¶
Let us compare and contrast PyTorch and TensorFlow from a number of dimensions that are relevant to users.
Ease of Use¶
One of the key differences between PyTorch and TensorFlow is the ease of use, particularly in terms of flexibility and debugging.
PyTorch is known for its intuitive, pythonic style, which appeals to many developers, especially those familiar with Python. With PyTorch, you write standard Python code, which makes it easier to debug using Python’s built-in tools, such as pdb. PyTorch’s execution model is more straightforward for those who prefer an imperative execution approach. This means that operations are computed immediately, allowing for dynamic computation graphs that can be modified on the fly. This makes PyTorch particularly well-suited for researchers who need to experiment and prototype quickly.
TensorFlow, in contrast, initially relied heavily on a static computation graph (aka define-and-run). This approach required the user to first define the computation graph and then run the session to execute it. This was less intuitive for many users and a static graph was harder to debug since you had to inspect the entire graph and didn’t have the flexibility to modify it easily. However, TensorFlow 2.0 addressed these concerns with the introduction of Eager Execution. This works in a manner similar to PyTorch’s dynamic approach. Despite these improvements, TensorFlow still has a steeper learning curve compared to PyTorch, especially for those new to machine learning.
Dynamic vs. Static Computation Graphs¶
The difference in computation graph execution is another core distinction between the two frameworks.
PyTorch employs dynamic computation graphs, also known as “define-by-run.” This means the graph is created on the go during each iteration of the model. Dynamic graphs offer flexibility, allowing models to change during runtime. For example, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) with variable sequence lengths or conditional operations are easier to implement in PyTorch because the graph doesn’t need to be defined before execution.
In TensorFlow, before TensorFlow 2.0, you had to define the entire computation graph beforehand and then execute it. This method, known as “define-and-run,” made certain tasks like debugging and model modification more challenging. TensorFlow 2.0’s Eager Execution mode introduced dynamic computation, closing this gap, but for those who prefer the original static graph mode, TensorFlow still supports it. The static graph allows for optimization techniques that can lead to faster execution and more efficient deployment, especially in production environments.
Ecosystem and Tools¶
Both PyTorch and TensorFlow come with a rich set of libraries and tools that enhance the development, training, and deployment of models, but they take slightly different approaches in terms of ecosystems.
TensorFlow has a more extensive ecosystem, with tools designed for various stages of the machine learning lifecycle. Some notable components are
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| TensorBoard | A visualization tool for tracking and analyzing model performance. |
| TensorFlow Lite | A lightweight version of TensorFlow optimized for mobile and embedded devices. |
| TensorFlow Serving | A library for serving machine learning models in production |
| TensorFlow Hub | A repository of reusable machine learning models. |
PyTorch also has a growing ecosystem, although it historically lagged behind TensorFlow in this regard. PyTorch’s ecosystem includes:
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| TorchVision | A package for computer vision tasks, offering datasets, models, and transformations. |
| TorchText | A library for handling text data and NLP tasks. |
| PyTorch Lightning | A high-level interface for PyTorch that helps organize complex codebases and reduce boilerplate. |
| ONNX (Open Neural Network Exchange) | PyTorch can export models to ONNX format, which allows for interoperability between frameworks and deployment in other systems. |
TensorFlow’s ecosystem tends to cater more to end-to-end solutions, making it popular for enterprises that want to scale their models from research to production. PyTorch, on the other hand, has been quicker to adopt experimental features and cater to researchers and academia.
Deployment and Production¶
In the context of deploying models into production, TensorFlow historically had the upper hand, thanks to its strong industry adoption and tools designed for serving and deployment.
TensorFlow offers TensorFlow Serving, a flexible and high-performance system for serving machine learning models in production environments. Additionally, TensorFlow supports deployment on mobile devices with TensorFlow Lite and on web platforms with TensorFlow.js. These tools make it easier to integrate models into production pipelines and deploy them across different platforms.
PyTorch, while popular among researchers, was initially slower in terms of providing production-level tools. However, with the introduction of TorchServe, a model serving library co-developed with AWS, PyTorch has made significant strides in making deployment easier. PyTorch also supports exporting models to the ONNX format, allowing them to be run in environments optimized for production, such as TensorFlow or other inference engines that support ONNX.
Community and Industry Adoption¶
Both frameworks have thriving communities, but their appeal varies depending on the audience.
PyTorch has a significant following in the research community. This is partly due to its dynamic computation graph and flexibility, which make it easier for researchers to iterate quickly. Many top AI conferences, such as NeurIPS and CVPR, see more papers written with PyTorch than TensorFlow. The growth of Hugging Face’s Transformers library, which is built on PyTorch, has also contributed to its popularity in NLP tasks.
TensorFlow has broader adoption in industry, especially in large-scale production systems. It’s backed by Google, which lends credibility and support for companies looking for a framework that can handle deployment at scale. TensorFlow’s robust ecosystem makes it a go-to choice for organizations that want a full-stack machine learning framework, from research to production deployment.
Performance and Scalability¶
In terms of performance, both PyTorch and TensorFlow are highly optimized for speed and scalability.
TensorFlow has built-in support for distributed computing, making it a natural choice for training large-scale models across multiple GPUs or TPUs (Tensor Processing Units). TensorFlow’s static graph allows for more optimizations at the graph level, potentially leading to faster execution in certain scenarios.
PyTorch has made significant improvements in distributed training with libraries like TorchElastic and Distributed Data Parallel (DDP). While PyTorch’s dynamic graph can lead to slower training times compared to TensorFlow’s static graph, it offers more flexibility, which can be a trade-off depending on the use case.
Conclusion¶
Ultimately, the choice between PyTorch and TensorFlow depends on your specific needs and the stage of your project (i.e. research vs production)
- If you’re focused on research, rapid prototyping, or flexibility, PyTorch may be the better choice due to its intuitive, dynamic nature.
- If you're looking for a full-fledged ecosystem that supports everything from research to production, and especially if you’re working in a large-scale production environment, TensorFlow is likely to be more suitable.
Both frameworks are powerful tools, and as they continue to evolve, they are increasingly incorporating features that were once unique to each other, making the choice less about capabilities and more about preference and the specific requirements of the task at hand.
Sincere thanks to readers of our blog who spend time reading our product blogs. Please Contact the Rafay Product Team if you would like us to write about other topics. Stay tuned for the next blog describing how our customers use PyTorch and TensorFlow seamlessly via the Rafay Platform's capabilities for AI/ML.