<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Benchmark ArcPro vs 64-bit background vs parallel processing - P.P. wins in Geoprocessing Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/benchmark-arcpro-vs-64-bit-background-vs-parallel/m-p/380851#M12998</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have ArcGIS 10.6, Windows 10, 32 GB RAM, Intel Core i7-5930K CPU @ 3.5 GHz and ArcGIS Pro 2.2.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I ran the Clip tool (under Data management/Raster/Raster processing/) on the same local data multiple times with these times:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. 32-bit ArcCatalog 12 parallel instances (parallel processing 100%) *** 11 minutes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. ArcCatalog with 64-bit background processing installed (no PP) *** 17 minutes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. ArcPro *** 21 minutes&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This goes against all the advise I've gotten on why to move to ArcPro.&amp;nbsp; I understand this is only one tool, but it made me wonder which type of tools are better in Pro or ArcGIS for speed.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Another odd note - The rasters created with the 64-bit process #2 were twice as large!&amp;nbsp; I reused the same clip command from the results window to make sure nothing was changed except the output name.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 20:47:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>barbarayassin</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-04-02T20:47:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Benchmark ArcPro vs 64-bit background vs parallel processing - P.P. wins</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/benchmark-arcpro-vs-64-bit-background-vs-parallel/m-p/380851#M12998</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have ArcGIS 10.6, Windows 10, 32 GB RAM, Intel Core i7-5930K CPU @ 3.5 GHz and ArcGIS Pro 2.2.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I ran the Clip tool (under Data management/Raster/Raster processing/) on the same local data multiple times with these times:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. 32-bit ArcCatalog 12 parallel instances (parallel processing 100%) *** 11 minutes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. ArcCatalog with 64-bit background processing installed (no PP) *** 17 minutes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. ArcPro *** 21 minutes&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This goes against all the advise I've gotten on why to move to ArcPro.&amp;nbsp; I understand this is only one tool, but it made me wonder which type of tools are better in Pro or ArcGIS for speed.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Another odd note - The rasters created with the 64-bit process #2 were twice as large!&amp;nbsp; I reused the same clip command from the results window to make sure nothing was changed except the output name.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 20:47:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/benchmark-arcpro-vs-64-bit-background-vs-parallel/m-p/380851#M12998</guid>
      <dc:creator>barbarayassin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-04-02T20:47:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Benchmark ArcPro vs 64-bit background vs parallel processing - P.P. wins</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/benchmark-arcpro-vs-64-bit-background-vs-parallel/m-p/380852#M12999</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for running this test and passing along your results, Barbara. I've never done a test like yours but it matches up with my experience with the three scenarios. I think 64-bit processing is beneficial when the normal 2 GB per process RAM limitation is met but not so much in execution speed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is me guessing, but it sure seems like ArcGIS Pro and 64-bit background geoprocessing comes with extra baggage that slows the processing down. Maybe there's no way around the extra baggage, or it adds value in other scenarios.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:19:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/benchmark-arcpro-vs-64-bit-background-vs-parallel/m-p/380852#M12999</guid>
      <dc:creator>PaulLohr</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-18T12:19:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

