Ask Different is a question and answer site for power users of Apple hardware and software. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is Xcode (Using Xcode 4.2) optimized for a quad core processor? My real question is will Xcode's performance be noticeably different with a dual core i7 as opposed to a quad core i7?

I might be purchasing a new computer soon, and want to know if it would be worth it to go with the quad core 15" instead of the dual core 13". I'm not really worried about screen size.


share|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Xcode will make good use of many cores - especially when running the simulator, unit testing at build time and just coding / compiling / searching documentation.

Also check to see if the processor with more cores has a higher speed boost when only one core is running. The rated speeds are controlled more by thermal conditions under full or benchmark loads and can run faster when the current workload is single thread dominated.

In general, the IO is the first thing to slow down a developer doing multiple normal dev tasks. Next is insufficient RAM and a distant third underpowered CPU. Do take your Xcode installer and some sample projects into an apple store and ask if you could run some tests on an air as well as larger machines. Some specific code bases and settings might be more polarized than the general case and more biased to CPU with larger cache or speeds, but the smallest air is so much faster than my three year old 15 MBP it's not very funny at all.

share|improve this answer
Alright, thanks! As I am not a hardware guy, I am a little in the dark about these things. I understand that GHz is partially a reflection of the speed of the processor- which would be faster for code compiling/simulation/testing- the 2.8GHz dual-core or the 2.2GHz quad-core? Or is there a noticeable difference? – iamataptool Nov 24 '11 at 0:50
I would get the SSD you can afford first. Even an air with SSD will be more productive / fast than an iMac with a spinning drive. Put large files elsewhere (second drive) as needed and only worry about CPU as the last item. It depends more on the code - but again the IO is what kills your productivity rather than CPU. Take a sample project and run it on any Air to see how fast those are. Most stores don't have SSD on display for other models, but spend your money on that first would be my advice. – bmike Nov 24 '11 at 1:34
Well first off it's going to be a laptop, though I'm not sure that makes much of a difference. And wow- really the SSD is the most important? I had thought that was more of a convenience thing. 8GB of RAM would still take precedence over the SSD though, right? – iamataptool Nov 24 '11 at 1:53
Nope - SSD is the most important thing - and RAM can be added easily on any non-Air and often gets less expensive. I always compare what RamJet costs vs Apple RAM - both are premium service / low hassle vendors. You can see if you want to wait and go with the base RAM or splurge for factory RAM on the get-go. Waiting till you actually have RAM constraint means costs may have gone down while you lived off the base configuration. Yes, you can add SSD later too, but those can be crankier with sleep issues, temp sensor problems, etc... – bmike Nov 24 '11 at 5:02
Wow- that totally changed my perspective on this. Will the upgraded RAM and processor not increase compiling time noticeably? That is the only problem I have with the computer I have right now; it is the reason I am upgrading. – iamataptool Nov 24 '11 at 5:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.