Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3072x1920 on 16" MacBook Pro

high3r said:
Indeed. UHD 630 is very weak and it's from two (!) years ago. The current 13 MBPs have a lot better iGPU and they have to cope with a smaller resolution too. So you have two options: sacrifice battery life with the use of dGPU or use the HD 630 and the UI will lag heavily which will give you the impression that your expensive MBP is slow and outdated.
Click to expand...

The UHD 630 is just what Intel builds into their high-power CPUs. Nothing Apple can do about it.
It really should be fine though for basic tasks, no need to fire up the Radeon Pro for UI navigation even on that resolution, the HD 630 isn't as weak as you make it sound like.
 
Personally I run my 2016, 15", at maximum resolution, 1920 wide, when coding.

I think it works very well. Using Visual Studio in VMWare Fusion I can easily have two C# files open side by side. Text is very readable.

I ordered the 16", 8 core, 32 GB, 2 TB, 5500M with 8 GB. Really looking forward to a larger screen, better resolution and performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
MrUNIMOG said:
The UHD 630 is just what Intel builds into their high-power CPUs. Nothing Apple can do about it.
It really should be fine though for basic tasks, no need to fire up the Radeon Pro for UI navigation even on that resolution, the HD 630 isn't as weak as you make it sound like.
Click to expand...

I know it's Intel's fault but it'd bother me a lot to have only 30-35 fps while navigating the UI instead of 60 fps.
 
My ability to focus closely has gone downhill recently. Even I don’t care about higher pixel density than what we already have.
 
I, almost always, run my 15" at 1440x900. I prefer the increased size (yay over 40 eyes) and the super crisp nature of the exact scaling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
high3r said:
I know it's Intel's fault but it'd bother me a lot to have only 30-35 fps while navigating the UI instead of 60 fps.
Click to expand...

Since the Mac mini with that same UHD 630 supports a total of up to 27.7 megapixels @60Hz (three 4K displays or one 5K and 4K display each), I find it hard to believe that GPU should struggle to maintain 60 FPS navigating the UI on the new 16-inch display at just under 6 megapixels... There's gotta be a lot of headroom.
 
Alright so I've had a chance to try the new 16-inch MBP's keyboard yesterday at the local Apple Store, and I'm disappointed, I have to say it's huge backward step to me.
While it does not feel quite as wobbly as pre-2015 keyboards, it's just lacking in clickiness and defined response compared to the butterfly keyboards (especially 2017 and up). Also don't appreciate the reduced keycap size. As a touch-typist, it's not as fast to type on, and certainly not as fun.

I've really enjoyed the typing experience on my 2016 MBP for the past three years, even more so since I've only recently had the keyboard replaced with the 2017 iteration, which has a more refined feel to it and a perhaps not quieter, but less piercing sound.
The 2018 and 2019 butterfly keyboards I've tried have felt just as pleasant to type on, if not better, while being much quieter.
Given that, and the reliability improvements made with the latest iteration (which doesn't seem to have a failure rate even worth mentioning), I must say the 2019 butterfly keyboard has to be the best keyboard Apple ever shipped.

I'd much rather have them strike more of a balance of what people appreciate about previous butterfly and scissor keyboards with that new MBP. It almost seems like they bowed to a very vocal minority, your average user has probably been fine with recent MBP keyboards.

Otherwise, seems like an awesome machine.
Barely noticeably larger, a bit heavier and the speakers are incredible. Very decent pricing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
Paapaa said:
C00l, but next time please read the thread title.
Click to expand...
Slightly off-topic sure, but the screen resolution has been discussed exhaustively and since this thread regards the 16" MBP why not share my hands-on impression of the probably most significant change the device brings 🙃
 
If I understand correctly, the 16” Pro’s default is 1792x1120@2x (3584x2240). I believe this makes the subsampling ratio identical to the 15.4”.

I would presume on this basis that the options below and above are the native 1536x960@2x and 1920x1200@2x.

EDIT: for anyone interested in the hypothetical 14” Pro, using this logic I say it would be a 2688x1680 display with a default of 1568x980@2x (3136x1960).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
According to the tech specs, the "more space" option is 1920x1200, but playing with one in the store yesterday, when you select that option under the graphic it states "Looks like 2048x1280".
 
The increase in 16 MBP resolution is negligible and the top bezel is larger than side bezel.
 
Personally find 1920x1200 marginally too small on the 15", but I wonder if the small size bump would just push it over the edge to be comfortable enough to use for extended periods, as I like the extra virtual space the resolution gives over 1680x1050.

I used to prefer 1440x900 for the integer scaling (which does look better) but ultimately found it restrictive for multiple window use. Out of interest is there a 1536x960 resolution on the 16" or just the 4 scaled resolutions Apple list on the tech specs?
 
Falhófnir said:
Personally find 1920x1200 marginally too small on the 15", but I wonder if the small size bump would just push it over the edge to be comfortable enough to use for extended periods, as I like the extra virtual space the resolution gives over 1680x1050.

I used to prefer 1440x900 for the integer scaling (which does look better) but ultimately found it restrictive for multiple window use. Out of interest is there a 1536x960 resolution on the 16" or just the 4 scaled resolutions Apple list on the tech specs?
Click to expand...
1152x720, 1344x840, 1536x960, 1792x1120, and 2048x1280
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG, nickf1 and Falhófnir
terraphantm said:
I listed what the machine supports. Seems like they just kept the same list as the 15" online (and technically even those would have had a 1440x900 option).
Click to expand...
I guess it makes sense they'd adjust the resolutions to keep the scaling the same but add a bit of extra resolution as otherwise you wouldn't really benefit from the larger screen size... just unusually sloppy from Apple on the web page front. Thanks for the list of resolutions, that helps a lot!
 
Falhófnir said:
I guess it makes sense they'd adjust the resolutions to keep the scaling the same but add a bit of extra resolution as otherwise you wouldn't really benefit from the larger screen size... just unusually sloppy from Apple on the web page front. Thanks for the list of resolutions, that helps a lot!
Click to expand...
Yeah the way it is, it feels like a very natural upgrade from the old 15" displays. Same pixel density at whatever scale you used to use, just more real estate.

And yeah, that's pretty sloppy for Apple. I'm sure it'll be fixed in the coming days.
 
Now that I have a 16", I can see Apple did a lot of things right with this laptop, making this the true successor to the 2015 and earlier rMBPs. The PPI is not one of them, however. I am running the Retina display at its native res, like always, and the UI elements are a bit bigger than I would prefer - ultimately not a dealbreaker for me, as it does provide a bit more space than the prior 15" models, but also not ideal.

This YouTuber briefly mentioned the problem with the 16" MBP's physical PPI as well. Hope this is something Apple can address in a future generation, though it's unlikely I'll be upgrading again anytime soon.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Falhófnir
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back