See testing section in DAS Tutorial 2016 for accuracy rates for different languages.
Big test in Google Data Center (Hindi?)
|Engine||Total char errors||Word Recall Errors||Word Precision Errors||Walltime||CPUtime*|
Note in the above table that LSTM is faster than Tess 3.04 (without adding cube) in both wall time and CPU time! For wall time by a factor of 2.
Median of three results from test on HP Z420 on a single Hindi page.
|Original (cube + tess)||7.6||7.3|
|LSTM With OpenMP+AVX||1.8||3.8|
|LSTM No OpenMP with AVX||2.7||2.4|
|LSTM No OpenMP with SSE||3.1||2.7|
|LSTM No OpenMP no SIMD at all||4.6||4.1|
My first test with a simple screenshot gave significant better results with LSTM, but needed 16 minutes CPU time (instead of 9 seconds) with a debug build of Tesseract (-O0). A release build (-O2) needs 17 seconds with LSTM, 4 seconds without for the same image.
The slow speed with debug is to be expected. The new code is much more memory intensive, so it is a lot slower on debug (also openmp is turned off by choice on debug). The optimized build speed sounds about right for Latin-based languages. It is the complex scripts that will run faster relative to base Tesseract.