Compile speed:Mac Book Pro 15 inch vs. Mac Book Pro 13 inch

Hi guys
Im considering upgrading my 2013 Mac Book Pro 13inch Duel Core i5, to a 15inch Quad Core i7
Ive got a relatively large Xojo project that takes a few seconds to compile. Multiply that by the number of times I run it in testing and a lot of time is wasted in compiling.
Can Any body give some anecdotal experience if this upgrade would actually make any difference to compile times.
Quad core vs Duel Core was answered as a NO in this thread
so does anyone have experience in building with a i5 vs i7 processor
Faster or not really noticeable ?

Regards James

of cores is not really relevant - Xojo uses one

so the fastest single core you can find has a big impact

that said the i7 is slightly more efficient than the i5 at the same core speed

I never noticed much tangible difference between my 3.4GHz i7 iMac and the 3.5 GHz i5 Retina iMac that I (briefly) had. You might want to wait for the Skylake ‘H’ procs to roll out. They look like significant upgrades, but not til next year…

Funny, Didn’t get an email that anyone had replied,
Sorry I didn’t say thanks for the info earlier, I only just looked at my post now.

I might hang out a bit longer by the looks of it there won’t be much benefit
Considering the investment

Cheers for the help

Skylake is on the horizon if you’re trying to time the market. I’m sure many will say “buy what you need when you need it” but you have a 2013 so it’s not like you’re clunking along with an old powerpc chip on an HDD. And the Skylake laptops are rumored to have other goodies with the graphics chip and recharging. Again, rumors. But if you’re not in a hurry it might be worth holding out 3-6 months.

Also, who knows. Maybe Xojo will support multiple cores in the future. At that point getting the latest and greatest might be worth it.

Never buy or wait on rumors - esp rumors about what Apple will do and when.
They’re notoriously wrong.
I’m still waiting on Apples rumored Pro iPad, Apple becoming an MVNO or bank, and lord knows what else.
Copland & Gershwin anyone ?
Until something actually ships it doesn’t exist

The Apple car is around the corner :wink:

[quote=211585:@Michel Bujardet]The Apple car is around the corner :wink:

Mine is hovering in the garage…

Apple hover boards ?

Again! (we brits use this term when the car is being repaired, it’s in the garage).

I for one will probably never buy an Apple car (most certainly not a Google car), I don’t want a car that drives it’self, it takes all the fun out of having a car.

Back on topic, in reference to the OP, what might make a difference is the newer SSD technology. Compared to original SSDs the current ones are at least 4x faster, which makes a major difference in start-up, loading and improves the memory paging speed when you overload your RAM (although don’t skip on that, get as much as you can, yes sell your kidney).

To be honest with you, unless you go Mac Pro and can build multi-core apps, you’ll only notice minor improvements. Even though Xojo doesn’t support multi-cores or pre-emptive threads there are things you can do to get around that.

Core Image, supports Metal, OpenGL and OpenCL, and the best thing is you can write your own CIKernels, chunks of code that the OS will spread across all the hardware. Now before you say I’m not working with images, images are just numbers and numbers are everything!

I agree… this is what makes the difference in speed here, so I think you could just upgrade your 2013 MBP with a SSD and enjoy the improvement in speed. Sure you never go back.

It does have a 512gig ssd but with 2 year old tech. Would the tech have changed enough to make that worthwhile? I also have 16 gig ram. It’s a good rig. Do the new ssd makes that much of a difference ?

Think it’s not worth the money updating a 2 year old SSD.
I’ve got 2 8 core 16GB RAM 500 GB SSD macbooks. One mid 2012 and one late 2014. So entire machine is newer but don’t experience any difference in speed at all with Xojo applications.

And I do have a MacMini with a fusion drive, just for redundancy of workstation, which is drama.

synthesis of what have been said above:

hardware speed:
Wait for small improvements.
Buy a new hardware when you need it (availability and need).

My advice:
Use all know tricks to speed the compilation by software; as an example to speed the project load, add a post-build script to set the icons used in the application (and its own).

Never declare the same variable in a loop (excepted when you need to reset it ?): For i As Integer = 0 to FolderItemRef.Count - 1 is really bad.
The speed gain may not be large, but this + that * everywhere will make some time. Isn’t it ?

I haven’t found much disussion about this on the internet, but it looks like Intel has found a way to speed up computer memory – solid and RAM – enormously. Memory still being the bottleneck, this could mean the next generation of computers will get a significant speed boost:

[quote=211688:@Ulrich Bogun]I haven’t found much disussion about this on the internet, but it looks like Intel has found a way to speed up computer memory – solid and RAM – enormously. Memory still being the bottleneck, this could mean the next generation of computers will get a significant speed boost:[/quote]

I watched the video there. From that, thay say current Nand is 1500 times slower than current Ram, and later on, that 3D Xpoint is 1000 times faster than Nand. Nevertheless, Ram remains faster.

So I guess what Intel will bring is much faster SSD, which is far from being negligible, but that won’t change current Ram technology. Actually, if Ram was to be replaced by 3D XPoint, the computer would be slower. That can make a huge difference for mobile devices, though.

You’re right, in terms of RAM it’s currently comparable to DRAMs, that’ why they are planning to publish it as an SSD replacement and subnotebook/server RAM first. But with a much higher density it could serve as a much bigger CPU cache – and don’t forget it’s only the first generation …

Needing no transistors, I wouldn’t be surprised if power consumption would be lower compared to current memory. Which could serve mobile devices well – think about the Apple Watch which doesn’t have to be blazing fast but surely could use better battery life (and more memory). Let’s see – they say first 3D XPoint “SSDs” will be available next year already. Seeing the speed boost of a normal SSD or Fusion drive, a 10 x increase over a current PCIe bus will be absolutely noticeable. And they say there’s as good as no difference between write and read times.