It seemed like the first proper pro update in years. But since, obviously, it's been disappointing.
It depends what you're doing to justify the upgrade to an i9 + 32 GB 2018 MacBook Pro, but if you're still happy with your 2012, then you probably don't need one.
The main justification I have for waiting is a bump in screen resolution, which on the 2018 models is exactly the same as the 2012 Retina models. Apple needs to offer a 3360x2100 panel for the price instead of running at a scaled resolution by default.
I, along with others, have experienced issues with the sound getting garbled and messed up, and crackling noises coming out of both the speakers and the headset port.I'm not happy with it; CPU mostly, will be getting RAM because i seldom have to use tricks to lower RAM usage, but i could stick with it for another year... Been wanting to update for a year now, waiting for exactly this (more cores and more RAM).
It's for audio production. I already have to disable most of oversampling and seldom freeze tracks on larger projects, else i get overloads, so its less than smooth sailing. But manageable.
I, along with others, have experienced issues with the sound getting garbled and messed up, and crackling noises coming out of both the speakers and the headset port.
Some people have pointed out that the T2-chip might be the root of the problem – you can read more about it in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macbook-pro-2018-speakers-crackling.2128234/
this is literally the best answer I have read to any should I upgrade question on here. It applies to all the products apple sells. the last few days my arrow has been hovering over the place order button for a new 2018 i9 and I just cannot bring myself to press it. I just get caught up in that new computer feeling and am ready to fork out $3000 for one with no regard to the trusty 2015 that I am typing this on.It depends what you're doing to justify the upgrade to an i9 + 32 GB 2018 MacBook Pro, but if you're still happy with your 2012, then you probably don't need one.
The main justification I have for waiting is a bump in screen resolution, which on the 2018 models is exactly the same as the 2012 Retina models. Apple needs to offer a 3360x2100 panel for the price instead of running at a scaled resolution by default.
Yes, that's common knowledge, but the Retina display combines/scales in a way that produces a great display. You can run your MBP at full resolution if you want too, but for a 15" laptop, the objects will be too small, at least they are for me.The 15" 2018 MBP actually is 3360x2100
The 2018 MBP is running a scaled resolution by default, 3360x2100. 2880x1800 is still the true physical (native) resolution of the panel, meaning the screen contents are rendered at 3360x2100, then downscaled with quality loss to fit on the panel.Apologies for the necro, but I felt the need to chime in here. Despite the resolution being advertised on the Apple site as 2880x1800 (same as the 2015 model), The 15" 2018 MBP actually is 3360x2100. I have no idea if this is a marketing mistake, but I confirmed this in Photoshop by taking screenshots from each machine and overlaying them.
Real pixels
![]()
Remember -- even though the menu bar appears to be the same height, if you put both of these images onto the same 15" display, the old resolution will end up scaling to a larger size. (Note the significantly larger Apple logo at the upper left.)
Scaled
![]()
I just upgraded from a 2015 MBP a few days ago. When I got my new machine, the UI scaling was one of the first things I noticed. The 2015 model always felt a bit "geriatric" to me; the new model has scaling that's more in line with my ~2012 iMac (although the DPI is of course much higher on the MBP). When I put them side by side, the new MBP feels more "correct".
The 2018 MBP is running a scaled resolution by default, 3360x2100. 2880x1800 is still the true physical (native) resolution of the panel, meaning the screen contents are rendered at 3360x2100, then downscaled with quality loss to fit on the panel.
It's a software setting. The 2012 - 2015 models can be set to 3360x2100 as well, in System Preferences > Displays. MacOS just doesn't default to it like on the 2016+ models.Ahh okay, I think I understand now. I'm curious though -- why do the new machines render a desktop at 3360x2100? My old machine (2015) and new machines (2018) are both running 10.13... Is there a firmware setting that tells the new machines to render at a higher default resolution compared to the old hardware?
Rendering at a higher resolution provides more screen space at the expense of quality. On a Retina display the quality loss is much less noticeable compared to a standard display, hence why Apple opted to make it default. But the quality loss is a compromise that can be avoided completely by increasing the panel's physical resolution up to 3360x2100.And any idea why Apple chose this higher res as the new default? Just to achieve a desired UI scaling?
Mind justifying your position on these two items?Great screen
Terrible touchbar
Are they "yay" or are they "nay"?
Should i stick to my rMBP 2012 for a year longer, or should i dive in (i9/32gb/2tb)?
Mind justifying your position on these two items?
The panels aren't even 3360x2100, with Apple instead opting to default to a non-native resolution with quality loss. It's an embarrassment at the price point, and sadly subtracts from the other areas where the MacBook Pro's display (and HiDPI support in MacOS) is clearly ahead of the competition.the screens on Macs are objectively great. No they aren't 4k but they generally have industry leading colour accuracy, brightness, etc. 4k on a screen that size is not required anyway.
Mind justifying your position on these two items?
so there are almost zero cases when it is more useful.
The panels aren't even 3360x2100, with Apple instead opting to default to a non-native resolution with quality loss. It's an embarrassment at the price point, and sadly subtracts from the other areas where the MacBook Pro's display (and HiDPI support in MacOS) is clearly ahead of the competition.
Let's see:
1. It shows buttons during dialog windows, which I find more convenient than the trackpad if I don't use a mouse (e.g., "delete, ok, cancel", etc.).
2. It allows a much more precise control over volume and brightness.
3. Enables picture-in-picture for some videos on sites where it is disabled.
4. Allows you to scroll videos or the itunes music you are currently playing without switching windows or using trackpad/mouse.
It's kind of useful, and I like it. That's just quick observations. Haven't tried it with pro tools.
On the flip-side, you now have a UI element that is no longer consistent and needs to be LOOKED AT to see what it is currently representing. It's well out of the way and more difficult to reach than the trackpad.
Apple could have integrated a display into the trackpad (activated by the Fn key or similar) instead and left the keyboard alone; THAT would have been far, far better than this half-baked emoji bar trash.