... These results highlight the efficacy and superiority of 3D CNNs over conventional methods. [11,17,18], Single-FPGA [1,3,5,19,20], Multi-FPGA [1], CPU [21,22], Xeon Phi [12,21], GPU [22][23][24], CPU-GPU [22], DSP [14], resistive RAM [25] CONV style Direct CONV [3,4,11,13,[21][22][23]26], matrix multiplication based [20], FFT-based [13,22], Winograd-based [1,12,14,18,19,23] 3D CNN evaluated C3D [3, 4, 11, 12, 17, 19-21, 27, 28], Base3D [28], I3D [11,17], 3D ResNet-50 [11,17], 3D U-Net [12], S3D [27], V3D [23], E3DNet [5], R(2+1)D [27,29] Dataset 3D MNIST [25], UCF101 [3,5,17,18,27], Sports-1M [4], LUNA-16 [1], Kinetics [11,17], TRECVID [18] Use of framework/library Intel Thread Building Block [22], MKL [5,12,13,22,26], FFTW [13,22], cuDNN [12,22], cuFFT [22], cuBLAS [23] Comparison with Caffe [13,24], Theano [13], Pytorch [26], TensorFlow [26], cuDNN [23,24,26] , LIBXSMM [12], MNN [27], MXNet [5] 3 COMPUTING PLATFORMS FOR 3D CNNS Table 1 gives the classification of various research works based on key parameters. It shows their computing platforms, the strategy for realizing CONV and the 3D CNN workload used by them. ...