Pytorch solves gym environments faster than tensorflow using the same training implementation and network architecture
Hello, @LuisFMCuriel ! Could you please have a look at this [gist](https://colab.research.google.com/gist/sushreebarsa/ad0f5f56ae553c4c706de7d1ff732dce/swarmymcqlearny.ipynb#scrollTo=stXA1XfmHCOx) where I tried to replicate the error reported? Please confirm the result.
Thank you! Hi @sushreebarsa ! Thanks for the quick replay. Yes, I confirm the result. Running the example for each (for example for 60 episodes), the tensorflow implementation has an elapsed time of 00:00:37 whereas the pytorch implementation has an elapsed time of only 00:00:09, having roughly the same reward (these numbers might change since seed is not set, but the behaviour is the same every time you run it). Is this a problem with my implementation of the neural gradient optimization? The program gives you the optimization time, and it looks to be approximately the same for both, so I am not sure where is the timing bottleneck. 

Thanks again for the time!!
### Issue type

Performance

### Have you reproduced the bug with TensorFlow Nightly?

Yes

### Source

source

### TensorFlow version

tf2.13

### Custom code

Yes

### OS platform and distribution

Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS

### Mobile device

_No response_

### Python version

3.10.12

### Bazel version

_No response_

### GCC/compiler version

_No response_

### CUDA/cuDNN version

11.8

### GPU model and memory

T4 GPU

### Current behavior?

I have encountered a performance difference between my PyTorch and TensorFlow implementations of the Double Deep Q-Network (DDQN) algorithm in a Gym environment. Both implementations share identical DDQN architectures, exploration routines, and training flows. However, the PyTorch implementation consistently converges faster, requiring fewer episodes to solve the environment.

Details:

**Network and Training Flow**: Both PyTorch and TensorFlow implementations employ the same dense neural network architecture (two hidden layers of [512, 128]) and training procedures. The timing for weight optimization is nearly identical between the two.

**Exploration**: Identical exploration strategies are employed in both implementations, ensuring consistency in agent behavior. Both of them use epsilon-greedy exploration.

The optimization code for each framework is:
**Tensorflow:**
```
@tf.function
def optimize_model(self,
                   experiences,
                   max_gradient_norm = float('inf')):
    states, actions, rewards, next_states, is_terminals = experiences
    #batch_size = len(is_terminals)

    with tf.GradientTape() as tape:

        # We get the argmax (or maximum action index using the online network)
        argmax_a_q_sp = tf.argmax(self.online_model(next_states), axis=1)
        # Then we use the target model to calculate the estimated Q-values
        q_sp = tf.stop_gradient(self.target_model(next_states))

        # And extract the max value using the index gotten with the online model
        max_a_q_sp = tf.expand_dims(tf.gather(q_sp, argmax_a_q_sp, axis = 1)[:,0], axis = 1)
        # Then we start computing the loss value
        target_q_sa = rewards + (self.gamma * max_a_q_sp * (1 - is_terminals))

        # Flatten the column_indices tensor
        actions_ = tf.reshape(actions, [-1])

        # Use tf.range to create row indices
        row_indices = tf.range(actions_.shape[0])
        row_indices = tf.cast(row_indices, tf.int64)
        # Create combined indices
        combined_indices = tf.stack([row_indices, actions_], axis=1)

        # Gather elements from the second tensor using combined indices
        q_sa = tf.gather_nd(self.online_model(states), combined_indices)
        q_sa = tf.reshape(q_sa, (-1, 1))

        #q_sa = tf.gather(self.online_model(states), actions, axis=1)
        td_error = q_sa - target_q_sa
        value_loss = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(td_error) * 0.5)
    variables = self.online_model.trainable_variables
    gradients = tape.gradient(value_loss, variables)

    self.value_optimizer.apply_gradients(zip(gradients, self.online_model.trainable_variables))
```
**Pytorch:**
```
def optimize_model(self,
                       experiences,
                       max_gradient_norm = float('inf')):

        states, actions, rewards, next_states, is_terminals = experiences
        batch_size = len(is_terminals)
        # We get the argmax (or maximum action index using the online network)
        argmax_a_q_sp = self.online_model(next_states).max(1)[1]
        # Then we use the target model to calculate the estimated Q-values
        q_sp = self.target_model(next_states).detach()
        # And extract the max value using the index gotten with the online model
        max_a_q_sp = q_sp[np.arange(batch_size), argmax_a_q_sp].unsqueeze(1)

        # Then we start computing the loss value
        target_q_sa = rewards + (self.gamma * max_a_q_sp * (1 - is_terminals))
        q_sa = self.online_model(states).gather(1, actions)

        td_error = q_sa - target_q_sa
        value_loss = td_error.pow(2).mul(0.5).mean()
        self.value_optimizer.zero_grad()
        value_loss.backward()
        #torch.nn.utils.clip_grad_norm_(self.online_model.parameters(), max_gradient_norm)
        self.value_optimizer.step()
```

I'm seeking guidance on potential factors that might explain this performance gap. Could variations in internal library optimizations, autograd systems, GPU utilization, or other factors play a role in this discrepancy? Any insights or suggestions for further investigation would be greatly appreciated.

You can access to an example by following this link:
[![Open In Colab](https://colab.research.google.com/assets/colab-badge.svg)](https://colab.research.google.com/github/LuisFMCuriel/SwarmyMcQLearny/blob/main/notebooks/SwarmyMcQLearny.ipynb)

### Standalone code to reproduce the issue

```shell
You can find the code in this GitHub repository: [GitHub Repository](https://github.com/LuisFMCuriel/SwarmyMcQLearny).

Alternatively, you can easily access an example by following this link to a Colab notebook: 
[![Open In Colab](https://colab.research.google.com/assets/colab-badge.svg)](https://colab.research.google.com/github/LuisFMCuriel/SwarmyMcQLearny/blob/main/notebooks/SwarmyMcQLearny.ipynb)
```


### Relevant log output

_No response_