Swiftech Apogee Review.

it really is amazing how different the performace between all of the blocks considered look on a graph, generated by accurate test equipment.....and then you go and stick them on a normal CPU with a blah thermal diode and they all come out looking the same.

any one of these blocks will offer some pretty competative performance in a real system, and money's always going to be a consideration when you are looking at which waterblock is right for you, so the apogee makes a strong case for itself.

what i find to be more impressive is the strength of the 6002, in this review. i think that smart shoppers would do well to pick up a discontinued "out of date" 6002 if they are really looking to save on their waterblock expenses. it's a prooven block with great performance and few, if any, reports of quality issues.
 
The 6002 blocks have always been a great performing block, it was rated as one of the blocks to get for a long time................ :D I've still got one in use and plan on getting rid of it anytime soon. But i will say that the 600x blocks were butt ugly. :eek:

There was at least one quality issue with the 6002 block that I know of and that was a brazing problem where the top and base were joined, but it didn't effect many blocks at all that I know of, I think most of the issues were with the Corsair version of the block.
 
When they fix that area around the barbs thats incredibly thin... I'll consider buying this block.

Until then, i'm sticking with my current TDX =).
 
On the die sims it is barely better than a Maze 3, LMFAO. Koolance spanks it. I knew this would be the case on good equipment. Man Swiftech is gonna have a hard time pulling their foot out of their mouth.
 
nikhsub1 said:
On the die sims it is barely better than a Maze 3, LMFAO. Koolance spanks it. I knew this would be the case on good equipment. Man Swiftech is gonna have a hard time pulling their foot out of their mouth.
Click to expand...
But for some strange reason it still performs on par with the storm and other blocks when hooked up to a processor. I dont think any foot-removal is going to be neccisary. Well, aside from the thin material and shavings issues.
 
Punx_Clever said:
But for some strange reason it still performs on par with the storm and other blocks when hooked up to a processor. I dont think any foot-removal is going to be neccisary. Well, aside from the thin material and shavings issues.
Click to expand...

Aren't you part of the group who believes in testing on standardized testing equipment? If you believe what you just stated then you should have no problem believing in all the Aqua Computer and other lower flowing system reviews that have been done over the last few years in a variety of locales. ;)
 
i think that was a good review, not really suprising that there's a big gap in simulators and real world applications of the products. I don't know if I'd call it "spin" since he did post the results where it got spanked by older blocks (even if he found them to perform similarly in real world applications). I thought it was very thouroughly tested though, glad they took ambients and water temps into consideration as well as remounting several times to see how reproducible it was. I can't stand reviews where they don't follow those procedures as they really do affect the performance of the blocks/hsfs.
 
Punx_Clever said:
But for some strange reason it still performs on par with the storm and other blocks when hooked up to a processor. I dont think any foot-removal is going to be neccisary. Well, aside from the thin material and shavings issues.
Click to expand...
Ehhm, fine by me for you to be the fool. This quote from Lee makes me think he was pushed into the CPU test which he NEVER does, why do it now? Can't be accurate he isn't setup for it.

"I don’t normally do live CPU waterblock testing as there are just too many variables to control and its hard to collect accurate data. However, while reviewing the Apogee I was specifically asked to conduct side-by-side tests on a popular CPU platform."
 
nikhsub1 said:
Ehhm, fine by me for you to be the fool. This quote from Lee makes me think he was pushed into the CPU test which he NEVER does, why do it now? Can't be accurate he isn't setup for it.

"I don’t normally do live CPU waterblock testing as there are just too many variables to control and its hard to collect accurate data. However, while reviewing the Apogee I was specifically asked to conduct side-by-side tests on a popular CPU platform."
Click to expand...
While we're throughing quotes up there, Lee also said:

"1. Thermal die simulators are just that – simulators. They can provide useful data (especially for waterblock designers) but don’t always give a true representation of how a particular waterblock will perform on a specific CPU. What we are missing is a good correlation between the different simulators and real CPU’s."

"4. Does this mean that Swiftech’s data is wrong and that the Apogee does not perform better than the MCW6000 series or the Storm? No – it just means it didn’t perform better under some of my test conditions. There may be specific scenarios, as the actual CPU testing shows, where the Apogee will perform on par with even the Storm.

5. Testing with a modern Athlon 64 processor closely matched Swiftech’s published CPU test results and shows the Apogee has the potential to perform as well or better than its two big brothers under certain conditions. This also implies that many users won’t see a measurable difference between the three waterblocks. However, I do suspect users will see a difference between the three different waterblocks when applied to more aggressive applications – ultimately, the waterblock that provides the highest, stable overclock in a particular system will rule."

I know you're a big FAN of Cathers blocks and so am I, so lets get real, real world that is.......... :eek:
 
Bio-Hazard said:
While we're throughing quotes up there, Lee also said:
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the part that the 'real world' testing was with a probe on the IHS :rolleyes: Even Lee knows this is utter garbage, he did this only at the request of swiftech. Now let's get real, the Apogee ain't all that, not even close.

"To assist in taking more accurate CPU temperature readings, a small Omega Type T thermocouple was attached to the side of the Athlon 64 IHS with thermal epoxy. While this provides a calibrated sensor, being located on the outer edge of the IHS doesn’t provide the most representative CPU temperature."
 
so......straying away from testing methods, since i've already said about all that i'm comforrtable saying on the subject......be interesting to see what the results would be if amds shipped with more accurate temp sensors.

but it is good to see that the blocks swiftech shipped to procooling explicity for testing showed both the metal cutting problem and the tendancy to crack that users on these forums are reporting.

not enough out there to say for sure if this problem is endemic or a few isolated cases, but his haveing checking out the details of construction was nice to see. i wonder if he researched what people who have them already are saying, so he knew what to look for, or if those problems are really so obvious that he just started measureing things and came up with that as a likely candidate.
 
Somebody needs to help Lee out with his english to metric system conversions....last time I checked 1/2" was a bit larger than 10mm ;) same with 3/8" and 7mm.


Overall a nice review, I liked how he tested different sized dies, it really shows how different test beds can produce widely varried results.
 
nikhsub1 said:
I guess you missed the part that the 'real world' testing was with a probe on the IHS :rolleyes: Even Lee knows this is utter garbage, he did this only at the request of swiftech. Now let's get real, the Apogee ain't all that, not even close.

"To assist in taking more accurate CPU temperature readings, a small Omega Type T thermocouple was attached to the side of the Athlon 64 IHS with thermal epoxy. While this provides a calibrated sensor, being located on the outer edge of the IHS doesn’t provide the most representative CPU temperature."
Click to expand...
Runs neck and neck compared to the Storm on my test bed clocked to 300x9 at 1.64 volts........... :D
:eek:
 
Bio-Hazard said:
Runs neck and neck compared to the Storm on my test bed clocked to 300x9 at 1.64 volts........... :D
:eek:
Click to expand...
and we all know how precise those integrated thermal diodes are, now don't we?

seriously, if you're going to base how well the block is performing based on measurements taken at too coarse a resolution to accurately and consistently measure changes as fine as 1 C, then you might as well just stop measuring temperature at all and seeing how well the system will overclock.

and just so people don't misundersand the above: overclocking is not an accurate measure of how good of a job your cooling solution is doing. i know that damn well. my point is that the temps reported by the thermal diode are not an accurate measure of how well your cooling system is performing either.

all top end blocks are going to run temps so close to one another that using highly calibrated test equipment is the only way that you are going to be able to really tell which is performing the best.

based on some of your previous comments, i don't expect that you have the resources to throw into a high-precision test setup, and i'm not suggesting you you have to go out to do so. just take your own observations with a grain of salt when you are commenting on someone else's review, who IS testing with high-precision equipment.
 
The OC was just to give a heat load.......... :eek: Not to show how well the block performs................ :D
I'm just saying that my CPU temps are the same with either block. And I do know how precise they are, but when comparing 2 blocks, it's about as close as you can get without like you said spending a ton of cash................... :D.The temps I'm getting are pretty much mirroring Lee's in his real world runs.................;)
 
I would rather see a review on how far each block can overclock a CPU..... That too me equals me wanting to spend money on a product. What good is 1-3c if you can't overclock any further?

This review focused too much on the "Storm versus Apologee" instead of the serious quality issues around the block condition and top issues with cracking.
 
DFI Daishi said:
and we all know how precise those integrated thermal diodes are, now don't we?

seriously, if you're going to base how well the block is performing based on measurements taken at too coarse a resolution to accurately and consistently measure changes as fine as 1 C, then you might as well just stop measuring temperature at all and seeing how well the system will overclock.

and just so people don't misundersand the above: overclocking is not an accurate measure of how good of a job your cooling solution is doing. i know that damn well. my point is that the temps reported by the thermal diode are not an accurate measure of how well your cooling system is performing either.

all top end blocks are going to run temps so close to one another that using highly calibrated test equipment is the only way that you are going to be able to really tell which is performing the best.

based on some of your previous comments, i don't expect that you have the resources to throw into a high-precision test setup, and i'm not suggesting you you have to go out to do so. just take your own observations with a grain of salt when you are commenting on someone else's review, who IS testing with high-precision equipment.
Click to expand...
I think my point got lost somehow. I agree with every word above that you said. My point was, as is yours, the test Lee performed with the CPU is pretty meaningless. The die sim results are what will show the true performance differences in the blocks IMO.
 
nikhsub1 said:
I think my point got lost somehow. I agree with every word above that you said. My point was, as is yours, the test Lee performed with the CPU is pretty meaningless. The die sim results are what will show the true performance differences in the blocks IMO.
Click to expand...
See to me a die sim means dick in the real world...... Why isn't everyone interested in how well the block interacts with a CPU instead of some artificial hot surface that will show exactly nothing about cooling a CPU? Another focus that is dumb, IMHO, is temps. What good are temps if the block doesn't allow you to push your CPU further?

So to recap, if block A allows the same overclock as block B but at 1c higher, does that make block B a better block?
 
What I'm trying to get at is, the sim tests show that the block performs very poorly when compared to the Storm, so that would mean that in real world, you should see a differance in temps when compared on the same system, at least by a few degrees C. When I compared the Storm to the 2 different versions of the Polarflo I saw a noticable differance in temps and same goes with the DD TDX with different nozzels, but not with this block. After all we are trying to cool a CPU and not a temp simulator.
And as Lee said at the end of his review;

" 1. Thermal die simulators are just that – simulators. They can provide useful data (especially for waterblock designers) but don’t always give a true representation of how a particular waterblock will perform on a specific CPU. What we are missing is a good correlation between the different simulators and real CPU’s."
 
Bio-Hazard said:
What I'm trying to get at is, the sim tests show that the block performs very poorly when compared to the Storm, so that would mean that in real world, you should see a differance in temps when compared on the same system, at least by a few degrees C. When I compared the Storm to the 2 different versions of the Polarflo I saw a noticable differance in temps and same goes with the DD TDX with different nozzels, but not with this block. After all we are trying to cool a CPU and not a temp simulator.
And as Lee said at the end of his review;

" 1. Thermal die simulators are just that – simulators. They can provide useful data (especially for waterblock designers) but don’t always give a true representation of how a particular waterblock will perform on a specific CPU. What we are missing is a good correlation between the different simulators and real CPU’s."
Click to expand...
and to try to hammer through my point one more time: the differences that the die runs show are real and accurate and affect YOUR CPU during YOUR review. the thermal diode in you CPU is too inaccurate to tell the difference between the two, so you can't SEE the difference.

is the difference in performace enough to make a difference to an average person's overclock? it would take a lot of tests with a lot of CPUs to get enough data to isolate the variabels to tell for sure.
 
Bio-Hazard said:
What I'm trying to get at is, the sim tests show that the block performs very poorly when compared to the Storm, so that would mean that in real world, you should see a differance in temps when compared on the same system, at least by a few degrees C. When I compared the Storm to the 2 different versions of the Polarflo I saw a noticable differance in temps and same goes with the DD TDX with different nozzels, but not with this block. After all we are trying to cool a CPU and not a temp simulator.
And as Lee said at the end of his review;

" 1. Thermal die simulators are just that – simulators. They can provide useful data (especially for waterblock designers) but don’t always give a true representation of how a particular waterblock will perform on a specific CPU. What we are missing is a good correlation between the different simulators and real CPU’s."
Click to expand...

I'm glad you have finally gotten this straight as a few of us have been trying to tell you this same thing for a long time now. :D
 
R1ckCa1n said:
See to me a die sim means dick in the real world...... Why isn't everyone interested in how well the block interacts with a CPU instead of some artificial hot surface that will show exactly nothing about cooling a CPU? Another focus that is dumb, IMHO, is temps. What good are temps if the block doesn't allow you to push your CPU further?

So to recap, if block A allows the same overclock as block B but at 1c higher, does that make block B a better block?
Click to expand...
if that 1C is measured accurately and is repeatable, then yes, block B is most definately a better block. do you necessarily GAIN anything from B being a better block? maybe, maybe not. that depends on a whole suite of other factors, most of them having fuck all to do with the block.

how clean is the power coming out of the wall? what is the room temperature? how is the air moving past the mosfets on the board? what batch did the caps on the board come from? what week is the CPU? and so on. you can't control most of those factors, and they have some impact on you real world OC.

why isn't everyone interested in how the block interacts with a CPU? well, in all honesty, we are. we just can't get accurate numbers for comparing two blocks that are performing neck and neck, strapping a block to a real CPU.

what do we do then? we come up with test procedures with a limited number of contributing factors, vary what we want to vary, measure everything that we can, and draw our conclusions

do you have a science-based or engineering-based education? if you do, you should be able to see why it is that you can't always test in the real world. if you don't, you should realize that you have some pretty serious blind spots when it comes to testing methodology.

to be fair, the arts teach you plenty about working with people, managing people, running a business, etc. the point is not to bash non-scientists. the point is that arts don't teach you how to test, collect data, and analyse numbers.
 
DFI Daishi said:
to be fair, the airts teach you plenty about working with people, managing people, running a business, etc. the point is not to bash non-scientists. the point is that arts don't teach you how to test, collect data, and analyse numbers.
Click to expand...

Glad I am a registered nurse who understands the limitations of book and testing theory to it's real life application. :D
 
Top Nurse said:
Glad I am a registered nurse who understands the limitations of book and testing theory to it's real life application. :D
Click to expand...
do you have the foggiest idea how much time it took testing and getting the theory right before IBM could start making the first processors?

or, in your field, how many jews the nazis killed to give us our present knowledge of the human nervous system? (an abhorrent practice, which i do not condone, and cite only as an example)

getting everying to work properly requires precise measurements, and lots of testing of a few variables at a time.

it's really easy to gainsay theory and scientific testing, but without it you wouldn't have microelectronics and surgens would sill paralyse areas of the body by cutting in the wrong places while they work.

the real world sucks, sometimes you need to work up to being able to opperate in it by taking baby steps.
 
R1ckCa1n said:
I would rather see a review on how far each block can overclock a CPU..... That too me equals me wanting to spend money on a product. What good is 1-3c if you can't overclock any further?

This review focused too much on the "Storm versus Apologee" instead of the serious quality issues around the block condition and top issues with cracking.
Click to expand...


So your saying that because a better block doesn't equate to a noticeable real world performance increase that it isn't worth it or better? So then why are you overclocking anyways? Most of the times the increase in performance is not noticeable in anything besides benchmarks. Unless your doing a lot of hardcore media encoding, something that takes a long time where a slight overclock can save you 5 minutes out of 5 hours, then there really isn't much point in overclocking at all. So since we're not overclocking we dont need to watercool, we can just stick with a nice big passive heatsink and some good case airflow.

It is a slippery slope. Why demand the best in one area, regardless of its actual real world performance increase, yet not demand the best in other areas?
 
I think R1ckCa1n OC's for gaming purposes so yes it is a noticeable kind of thing. :D
 
Top Nurse said:
I think R1ckCa1n OC's for gaming purposes so yes it is a noticeable kind of thing. :D
Click to expand...

OCing for gaming isn't noticeable except in gaming benchmarks. You will gain at most 10fps with a good overclock, unless you are running a really old game, in which case your already running upwards of 120fps so any increase is meaningless.

If you sat down two computers, identical except one was overclocked 600MHz (avg AMD OC), you would not be able to tell the difference unless a benchmark was run.

The main reason why people OC is because they want the best out of their gear. Whether they can actually tell a difference or not.
 
Everyone seems to be missing a major point here. This comes straight from the swiftech description of the apogee block:
"In particular we took into account the trend for dual core processors which feature larger die sizes thus requiring a different treatment of the heat fluxes."

I read that as, "The apogee is designed to work better than the storm on cpus with large dies and an IHS where the heat is spread out over a larger area."

Swiftech even admits that the apogee will perform worse than the storm on cpus with smaller die area and no IHS. Again quoting swiftech:
"It should be added that under certain circumstances, the Storm water-block may perform better than the Apogee water-block. We cite for example earlier generations AMD Athlon XP, MP and Duron processors where the die size is smaller in surface area (100 to 140mm2) than current microprocessors."
 
DFI Daishi said:
if that 1C is measured accurately and is repeatable, then yes, block B is most definately a better block. do you necessarily GAIN anything from B being a better block? maybe, maybe not. that depends on a whole suite of other factors, most of them having fuck all to do with the block.

how clean is the power coming out of the wall? what is the room temperature? how is the air moving past the mosfets on the board? what batch did the caps on the board come from? what week is the CPU? and so on. you can't control most of those factors, and they have some impact on you real world OC.

why isn't everyone interested in how the block interacts with a CPU? well, in all honesty, we are. we just can't get accurate numbers for comparing two blocks that are performing neck and neck, strapping a block to a real CPU.

what do we do then? we come up with test procedures with a limited number of contributing factors, vary what we want to vary, measure everything that we can, and draw our conclusions

do you have a science-based or engineering-based education? if you do, you should be able to see why it is that you can't always test in the real world. if you don't, you should realize that you have some pretty serious blind spots when it comes to testing methodology.

to be fair, the arts teach you plenty about working with people, managing people, running a business, etc. the point is not to bash non-scientists. the point is that arts don't teach you how to test, collect data, and analyse numbers.
Click to expand...
Actually I have a degree in wasting money on products that don't perform in the real world as they do on a simulator........ Cathar had an interesting thread on procooling years ago about focusing on cooling the most important part of the core instead of all the focus on lowest possible temps. Wish I knew where it is.

You started to get the point though~! You can buy the block that performs the best in a controlled simulator test but in a computer case with different pumps, radiators, RAM, motherboard, CPU, etc your mileage will vary.
 
veeoo said:
Everyone seems to be missing a major point here. This comes straight from the swiftech description of the apogee block:
"In particular we took into account the trend for dual core processors which feature larger die sizes thus requiring a different treatment of the heat fluxes."

I read that as, "The apogee is designed to work better than the storm on cpus with large dies and an IHS where the heat is spread out over a larger area."

Swiftech even admits that the apogee will perform worse than the storm on cpus with smaller die area and no IHS. Again quoting swiftech:
"It should be added that under certain circumstances, the Storm water-block may perform better than the Apogee water-block. We cite for example earlier generations AMD Athlon XP, MP and Duron processors where the die size is smaller in surface area (100 to 140mm2) than current microprocessors."
Click to expand...
if you actually read the review, robotech tested with both a heat die sized for single core and a heat die sized for dual core. he gave the apogee it's fair chance, and it still didn't perform as well as any number of other blocks.
 
Erasmus354 said:
OCing for gaming isn't noticeable except in gaming benchmarks. You will gain at most 10fps with a good overclock, unless you are running a really old game, in which case your already running upwards of 120fps so any increase is meaningless.

If you sat down two computers, identical except one was overclocked 600MHz (avg AMD OC), you would not be able to tell the difference unless a benchmark was run.

The main reason why people OC is because they want the best out of their gear. Whether they can actually tell a difference or not.
Click to expand...
Wrong... one would be at a lower resolution to maintain good FPS. ;)
 
R1ckCa1n said:
Actually I have a degree in wasting money on products that don't perform in the real world as they do on a simulator........ Cathar had an interesting thread on procooling years ago about focusing on cooling the most important part of the core instead of all the focus on lowest possible temps. Wish I knew where it is.
Click to expand...
really?

wow, you sure proved me wrong.

i thought that you had a degree is wasting money on products that are german.

so, what exactly is paying twice as much for a given level of performace? is that something other than a waste of money?

you choose to pay premium for having pretty looks. fine.

some people choose to pay premium for added cooling performace, which might potentially help their OC, even if it is not a sure thing.

as for that procooling thread, i would very much like to read it, and know why the project was abandoned.

so, do you have any background when it comes to testing and what constitutes a good test? statistics even?
 
R1ckCa1n said:
You started to get the point though~! You can buy the block that performs the best in a controlled simulator test but in a computer case with different pumps, radiators, RAM, motherboard, CPU, etc your mileage will vary.
Click to expand...
so, when you are judging what block is best, and should get you the best performance if none of the stuff that you can't control happens to hold you back, should you go with the testing that judges the block when there is nothing else to muddy up the results, or the testing that focuses ONLY on the block?
 
The long and the short of it is this.

1) Apogee is no better, and actually worse, than the old 600x series, let alone the Storm.

2) As was mentioned Robotech was reluctant to do actual cpu testing. Why? Too many variables.

3) Die testing IS the best we can achieve at the moment. Those who think that an ihs capped cpu is accurate enough to do testing, over many mounts, each mount affecting tim joint, are fooling themselves. Too many variables can not be accounted for. When Amd and Intel designed the ihs, you can reason that they did not have in mind a heatsink or water block being mounted and remounted on their cpu upwards of over fifty times and more.

4) I hope Cathar feels vindicated, since so many people who wrote him off so quickly. The Storm is the far better block. Cathar has done more to advance watercooling than any other individual. Just wanted to say thank you to Cathar. You are a true gentleman, and handled yourself admirably when "others" were not.
 
DFI Daishi said:
really?

wow, you sure proved me wrong.
Click to expand...
That is not a hard thing to do ;)

DFI Daishi said:
i thought that you had a degree is wasting money on products that are german.
Click to expand...
That is the best money I have spent to date. There is a reason I sold my G4 and Storm block. They are not better in a real world system, MINE, than that german product! Remeber, I can care less about 1-2c if it nets no ZERO performance.

DFI Daishi said:
so, what exactly is paying twice as much for a given level of performace? is that something other than a waste of money?
Click to expand...
Come on... I will pay twice as much for German engineering if that means I get an Aquaero, Tubemeter, etc to interact with my system instead of a bunch of bulky tubing which equals ZERO performance/fucntion increase. :)

DFI Daishi said:
you choose to pay premium for having pretty looks. fine.

some people choose to pay premium for added cooling performace, which might potentially help their OC, even if it is not a sure thing.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you have noticed but I am not the minority anymore reqarding this subject.

DFI Daishi said:
as for that procooling thread, i would very much like to read it, and know why the project was abandoned.
Click to expand...
Me too. Cathar used to post the same type of ideas in OCForums too. He always equated his new block worth based on improved temps and if he was able to overclock his system more. That I can buy into.

DFI Daishi said:
so, do you have any background when it comes to testing and what constitutes a good test? statistics even?
Click to expand...
Nothing more than real world results based on my hardware. Remember, that is all that matters at the end of the day. Good results equate to feeling good about a purchase.


DFI Daishi said:
so, when you are judging what block is best, and should get you the best performance if none of the stuff that you can't control happens to hold you back, should you go with the testing that judges the block when there is nothing else to muddy up the results, or the testing that focuses ONLY on the block?
Click to expand...
That is the joke in testing. People flock to buy a new and improved block and don't realize their RAM, power supply, motherboard, or CPU is holding them back. They rush to say "I GOT 1C BETTER TEMPS" but fail to realize it did ZERO to improve performance. Isn't that why most people watercool and use pelters? I for one feel like I wasted money when I put something new in my system unless it results in better performance or functionality.
 
plywood99 said:
The long and the short of it is this.

1) Apogee is no better, and actually worse, than the old 600x series, let alone the Storm.

2) As was mentioned Robotech was reluctant to do actual cpu testing. Why? Too many variables.

3) Die testing IS the best we can achieve at the moment. Those who think that an ihs capped cpu is accurate enough to do testing, over many mounts, each mount affecting tim joint, are fooling themselves. Too many variables can not be accounted for. When Amd and Intel designed the ihs, you can reason that they did not have in mind a heatsink or water block being mounted and remounted on their cpu upwards of over fifty times and more.

4) I hope Cathar feels vindicated, since so many people who wrote him off so quickly. The Storm is the far better block. Cathar has done more to advance watercooling than any other individual. Just wanted to say thank you to Cathar. You are a true gentleman, and handled yourself admirably when "others" were not.
Click to expand...
You forgot the Apologee comes with free shavings and has a top that cracks easily.

edit: You are very correct about number 4. Without him pushing the watercooling envelope we would all still be stuck with a Maze4!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top