Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch (2018) Review: Actually for Pros

Tom's Hardware Verdict

Apple’s 2018 MacBook Pro refresh offers strong CPU performance and blazing fast SSDs worthy of the Pro name, but it could use longer battery life and is still short on ports.

Pros

  • +

    Strong CPU performance

  • +

    Ridiculously fast SSD

  • +

    True Tone display

  • +

    Quieter keyboard

Cons

  • -

    Battery life shorter than competition

  • -

    Still short on ports

  • -

    Only expensive models refreshed

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Dual-core processors just aren’t enough for real professionals anymore. Graphics work, video editing and photo manipulation require more power than ever. And while Apple caught flack for a lack of power in the 13-inch MacBook Pro last year, the company’s update to quad-core chips packs a punch. The Core i7-8559U on our review config was speedy, and the laptop also features some of the fastest SSD storage we’ve ever seen. Additionally, it offers some features from the iPad, like True Tone and “Hey Siri,” for the first time on the Mac. But the design hasn’t changed, so if you’re not a fan of low travel keyboards and don’t want to live the dongle life with only Thunderbolt 3 ports, it still has shortcomings.

Design

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Andrew E. Freedman
Senior Editor

Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. He also keeps up with the latest news. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Follow him on Threads @FreedmanAE and BlueSky @andrewfreedman.net. You can send him tips on Signal: andrewfreedman.01

  • bananaforscale
    It doesn't throttle because it doesn't have an i9, and even with the current CPU it's close. "The CPU ran at an average temperature of 87 degrees Celsius (188.6 degrees Fahrenheit)."
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    It'd be nice to know the hardware configurations of the other laptops tested. I only checked out the XPS 13, but it has a variety of options including CPU, RAM size/speed, SATA vs PCIe storage, etc.
    Reply
  • Kelavarus
    21195186 said:
    It'd be nice to know the hardware configurations of the other laptops tested. I only checked out the XPS 13, but it has a variety of options including CPU, RAM size/speed, SATA vs PCIe storage, etc.

    This is exactly what I was going to say. Makes it kind of confusing. I was going to say a lot more in specifics, but decided to do some digging, and holy cow. I was confused because the Surface Book 2 gets such a low score on Geekbench 4 compared to the MBP, and the SB2 is equipped with (judging by the score) an i7-8650u, while the MBP has an i7-8559u. I would have assumed the higher number i7 should be better, right? Especially as they both start with 8, so the same generation right? Buuuut apparently Intel makes no sense when it comes to naming conventions and the 8559u is Coffee Lake and has a higher TDP than the Kaby Lake 8650u. Ooookay, Intel. Not confusing at all.

    I am still curious though about the very large gap. Seems unlikely it's all CPU, and the SB2 should be equipped with at least a GTX 1050, so is that T2 chip working some magical wizardy on the benchmark?
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    @Kelavarus yeah as a consumer there's little you can glean about an Intel CPU just based on its model number (other than generation), at least as far as I can tell. As you noticed, the 8559u has a higher TDP, and higher base/boost clocks compared to the 8650u. Also, the 8559u is coffee lake, whereas the 8650u is Kaby Lake refresh. Confused yet? :P

    I'm guessing the geekbench scores are purely the CPU results (from what I can find it looks like Geekbench 4 has separate compute workload test to test GPU performance).
    Reply
  • owhansson
    Something smells fishy. When I see scores like the one in your benchmarks, I cannot help but wonder how it was achieved. And then I look for explanations.

    I love Tom's because most articles are somewhat analytical. Some articles, by certain contributors, are very analytical. They are interesting and usually answer most of my questions. This article, instead, avoids even asking the most obvious question: How was the storage performance achieved?

    As I see it, there are three possible reasons for the very high score -

    1. We have ourselves a huge breakthrough in storage technology that the rest of the industry has somehow missed (highly unlikely) or,

    2. Apple is utilizing Intel Optane and hasn't told us (unlikely) or,

    3. The true performance of the SSD is being hidden by Copy-on-Write (likely).


    I would like to know which one it is. Most of all, I would like a review on Tom's to NOT just buy into the hype and instead investigate the issue.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    @owhansson my best guess is that the storage benchmark used is basically reporting max sequential read speeds, in which case the results are about on par with other premium PCIe SSDs. It appears all the other laptops tested were configured with SATA SSDs, making the comparison a poor one.

    It's also possible your option # 3 is coming into play, in the form of Apple's new "Instant Clone" file system feature.
    Reply
  • rr8086
    I don't understand why you would recommend Huwaei products when the FBI, NSA, and CIA and other security agencies have all urged people not to buy their products. They're considered a national security risk.
    Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER
    21195410 said:
    Something smells fishy. When I see scores like the one in your benchmarks, I cannot help but wonder how it was achieved. And then I look for explanations.

    I love Tom's because most articles are somewhat analytical. Some articles, by certain contributors, are very analytical. They are interesting and usually answer most of my questions. This article, instead, avoids even asking the most obvious question: How was the storage performance achieved?

    As I see it, there are three possible reasons for the very high score -

    1. We have ourselves a huge breakthrough in storage technology that the rest of the industry has somehow missed (highly unlikely) or,

    2. Apple is utilizing Intel Optane and hasn't told us (unlikely) or,

    3. The true performance of the SSD is being hidden by Copy-on-Write (likely).


    I would like to know which one it is. Most of all, I would like a review on Tom's to NOT just buy into the hype and instead investigate the issue.

    The answer to your question is #1. With High Sierra, Apple introduced a new file system that is dramatically faster at certain operations (i.e. copying files) than the previous HFS+ file system, or even Microsoft NTFS. Files are not actually copied, new file descriptors are added with back pointers to the original file and modifications are stored as deltas. That is not to say that Apple SSD controllers are not fast .. they are. But in this test, it's AppleFS that is doing most of the "magic" here.
    Reply
  • bortao
    Why there's no specs of the comparing products?
    Why there's no comparison to last year's mbp? or to a 15" model?
    File transfer benchmark is invalid, because what AppleFS do is a simple clone, not sector by sector copy, so this do not measure the hard drive speed.
    This processor's turbo is 4.5Ghz. In your "real-world video editing test" you just mention the base 3.0Ghz. So I assume it is indeed throttled down (to the base clock), and couldn't achieve turbo speed. So your headling "Throttling? Not a Problem" is incorrect.
    Reply
  • lew_zealand
    4.5 GHz is a single core Turbo number and video editing is a multi-core workload so you'll need to see what the all core Turbo mode is.

    Additionally, all laptops throttle below maximum turbo when all cores are used, thin and light laptops more so. The Macbooks are no exceptions and neither are Dell, Lenovo, etc. The differences are in the cooling hardware for each. I'd love to see a comparo of the same CPUs across different manufacturers to see who is doing the best job of cooling in a thin and light laptop.
    Reply