Performance oriented users are not even looking at 28W CPU, they want 130W CPUs, as in multiple of them. Back then you had Mac Pro to do heavy lifting, now the best you can do is IMac Pro and lots of cables if you want to have similar experience. I don't feel like checking this is details but I'm pretty sure the performance gap between Macbooks and equivalent Windows machines wasn't as big as now, most likely because GPU was not used to accelerate anything outside games and mobile CPUs had locked frequencies. I remember seeing Macbook Pro usually on top of performance charts outside of "Desktop replacement" class. And you almost couldn't buy anything as powerful as Mac Pro.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is MacBook Pro 2018 a failure?
- Thread starter pttai
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My 2010 15" had the display panel go bad (discolouring) after about 1 year, and the replacement panel went the same. It was by far the least reliable Mac I've ever owned. Of course I don't conclude from my personal experience that they were all like that.
As for ports, it really depends what you use. As far as I'm concerned Macbooks have always needed adapters: that 2010 lacked VGA and HDMI, so if you were giving a presentation or using an external monitor you needed adapters (and the pathetic 2 USB ports were so close together you could usually only use one at a time, so another adapter was needed there). Its replacement gained HDMI but lost ethernet, so that was another adapter (also lost firewire, but I personally know nobody who used that). The 2018 needs adapters, but as USB-C is more capable for most purposes a single adapter covers everything, so in practice I find it less of a hassle than earlier ones as far as ports go. Your mileage may vary.
It's not been a failure for me, it's been working flawlessly (2018 15" MBP base model). I think that the base model that I have has had the fewest issues, graphics card and thermal-wise. The higher end models seem to have been dogged with issues, but that could just be my perception. Hard to say since there are no real published statistics.
Ummm.....not to be rude, but no. MacBook Pros were known for the durability once. Right now I am typing this on a 2011 MacBook Pro. This thing still works just as good as the day it was made 8 years ago. However, Apple has changed. Like I said, they have sacrificed durability and longevity for sleekness and style. I will agree that they have been working towards this for some time now. But MacBook Pros have ALWAYS been the highest end and biggest/largest/most powerful Apple laptops on the market. Period. If you don't know that, than you know nothing about Apple laptops. And I'm being 100% honest in saying that. MacBook Pros are bigger/larger than the MacBook Airs and MacBooks. Recently (past 4 years) MBP's have been built smaller/lighter/thinner, however they are still the largest of the laptop series currently sold by Apple.
[doublepost=1549259723][/doublepost]
From what I have observed, the newer models seem to be a case-by-case situation. They're not all duds by any means. They just have a wide variety of potential issues that could come up. I believe that the majority of owners that have a 2018 or even 2017 MBP do not experience any issues whatsoever. Still, I am planning on holding out for the 2019 model. Really hoping for a better keyboard.
pre-retina macbooks were worse and less sturdy than the 2012-2015 retina models.
2011 quadcores overheated as well
2012-2015 were the most solid macbooks in terms of how many times they could be throw to the floor and survive.
and batteries on 2008-2012 models were horrible, i replaced so many swollen batteries on the 2008... and battery life was terrible.
batteries improved much more in 2012-2015 models, i had battery replaced once after 6 years on the 2012 rMBP.
i had to replace it 4 times in 4 years on the 2008.
[doublepost=1549269307][/doublepost]
I have personally handled three 2011 models with fried GPU.
2012 retina i have however still purrs like a kitten. not only that, it has plenty of juice left in it.
i'm speculating that most malfunctioning keyboards of the 2018 models are due to QC issues, since they develop issues really early an all exhibit identical symptoms.
Every day I am loving mine more and more. No problems of any kind yet, I haven't really given it much of a break since I picked it up, running tasks constantly to clean up a bunch of messy hard rives. Full time running LR importing massive image banks, while running CCCloner with external 4k monitor with a bunch of other apps open (10 at the moment.. lazy), using intel monitor runs constantly @ 3.9 - 4, no sign of throttle issues (mine is the i9) It is just sitting there kicking through the work.
Of course the 17" is affected as well. Its uses the same exact components as the 15"...
[doublepost=1549283180][/doublepost]
Right, just because your's particular 2011 is still working well, all newer one's are crap. I've been buying at least a dozen of MBPs professionally every year for a last decade. All of our 2011 MBPs are dead. Since that was model that got hit by one of the worst GPU failures in Apple's history. To bring this model as an example of Apple's reliability is pure irony.
Well it's far from what Apple's promoting it to be at crazy high price.
I give it that.
[doublepost=1549283432][/doublepost]
With CPU utilization at around 9%, it should be able to run at unthrottled speed anyway.
I give it that.
[doublepost=1549283432][/doublepost]
With CPU utilization at around 9%, it should be able to run at unthrottled speed anyway.
You're seeing 82c with only 9% utilization
I don't have an i9, but I have the i7 8850 processor and I'm averaging 40 - 50c at near idle on my Thinkpad. Your machine seems very hot.
This is so unsettling to someone like myself who has been a pro audio/video person for nearing 25 years who relies solely on Apple computers. Seems Apple is bent on becoming nothing but a 'prosumer' phone and tablet company. SMH
Last edited:
You're seeing 82c with only 9% utilization
I don't have an i9, but I have the i7 8850 processor and I'm averaging 40 - 50c at near idle on my Thinkpad. Your machine seems very hot.
It's hilarious, punch up to full load and the CPU will roll back frequency in a heartbeat
Q-6
You're seeing 82c with only 9% utilization
I don't have an i9, but I have the i7 8850 processor and I'm averaging 40 - 50c at near idle on my Thinkpad. Your machine seems very hot.
well it seems I spoke too soon then if mine is running hot? I just thought it would be hot as many have said the i9 would be. Is this an issue with my machine then? or just the way they are?
Thanks - always learning.
What tests really push it?
[doublepost=1549329279][/doublepost]Temp didn't seem to change much when the usage went up a little? I guess if running it for a long time it would?
Just trying to see if this is how other i9's are running.
I can't speak for the i9, but like I said, my Thinkpad runs fairly cool and I've yet to see it thermally throttle.
You can try the Corona Renderer benchmark as that will push the CPU hard. CineBench R15 is another option, however too short for these new hex core CPU's to really stretch their legs and stress the system.
A light load can induce high CPU frequency, these benchmarks will load up the CPU with realistic rendering workloads. The likes of Prime95 is overkill IMHO as it will literally crush the CPU with instructions resulting in max frequency, max load and max temperature. I've seen as high as 90W on a 8750H with Prime95 which is really getting up there for a mobile CPU.
Q-6
You can see the performance available, at around 3.3GHz sustained it's probably as good as it gets with an MBP, Corona Renderer will push the CPU for longer and will reveal any downclocking tendency.
Q-6
For the i9 MBP, it isn't bad. I do think there's throttling going on. When I owned my 2.2Ghz MBP, I was averaging over 1000 in cinebench. I only say this as a means to conjecture that the i9 is throttling more then slower/cooler models.
You can see it initially spikes on temp as the CPU hits T-junction, then rapidly rolls back clock frequency The other observation is after the initial reduction in performance the temperature remains to climb, which is more of a concern to me.
Corona Renderer will be far more revealing as the render time is far longer than Cinebench R15 with this i9 MBP likely completing the run in around 30 seconds versus Corona which will be closer to the three minute mark.
Q-6
imo, the i9 in the MacBook Pro is pointless and a waste of money. I couldn't be happier that i returned it.
The i5 quad in the 13" tho, it's amazing. I can work in logic without fans ramping up.
the i9 was ramping up the fans in fear when you touched it.
The i5 quad in the 13" tho, it's amazing.
I can work in logic without fans ramping up.the i9 was ramping up the fans in fear when you touched it.
imo, the i9 in the MacBook Pro is pointless and a waste of money. I couldn't be happier that i returned it.
The i5 quad in the 13" tho, it's amazing.
the i9 was ramping up the fans in fear when you touched it.
Bar talk & Beer points
Base 8750H very likely performs the same in sustained tasks, possibly faster as it wont spike as high and pull as much power as the i9. Sustained load such as Cinebench R15 8750H pulls a clean 3.9GHz at around 60W.Q-6
Bar talk & Beer points
Q-6
not sure whether you're agreeing wtih me or not
i9 was the only one in stock with Vega at the store. I needed to buy asap, they kinda had me
That's how Apple rolls, I'd rather the i7 8750H & Vega, equally not an option. The big Store's that stock BTO's always tend to have top tier spec barring the SSD. Yeah I'd be real interested in seeing how the graphs flow under Corona Renderer's workload.
Q-6
[doublepost=1549461566][/doublepost]
Very true if you look at the 15" MBP & XPS there's not much in it. XPS may have a slight edge, equally in real life use forget it
and it could easily swing to the MBP with something as simple as a firmware update. Better still ASUS ZenBook with i9, ain't looked in a while, equally seems to be an exercise in futility by the marketing department Q-6