Is it really saving time or are you not thinking enough about what is wrong until you stumble on an answer? I can't answer for you but I find that the forced wait for build also forces me to think and so I find the problem faster. It feels slower though but the clock is the real measure.
It's one click to set the breakpoint in the ide or one line if you're using gdb from the command line. I'm not sure how printf debugging could be quicker even if you didn't have to rebuild. Having done both, I'd take the debugger any day.
the important time is thinking time and debuggers don't help. Often they hurt because it is so sudctive to set those breakpoints instead of stophing to think about why.
Sometimes "just thinking harder" works, but often not. A debugger helps you understand what your code is actually doing, while your brain is flawed and makes flawed assumptions. Regardless of who you are, it's unlikely you will be manually evaluating code in your head as accurately as gdb (or whatever debugger you use).
I think a lot of linux/mac folks tend to printf debug, while windows folks tend to use a debugger, and I suspect it is a culture based choice that is justified post hoc.
However, few things have been better for my code than stepping through anything complex at least once before I move on (I used to almost exclusively use printf debugging).
