The Great Equalizer Part 2: Surface Pro vs. Android Devices in 3DMark

While we're still waiting for Windows RT and iOS versions of the latest 3DMark, there is one cross-platform comparison we can make: Ivy Bridge/Clover Trail to the Android devices we just tested in 3DMark.

The same caveats exist under 3DMark that we mentioned in our GL/DXBenchmark coverage: not only is this a cross-OS comparison, but we're also looking across APIs as well (OpenGL ES 2.0 for Android vs. Direct3D FL 9_1 for Windows). There will be differences in driver maturity not to mention just how well optimized each OS is for the hardware its running on. There are literally decades of experience in optimizing x86 hardware for Windows, compared to the past few years of evolution on the Android side of the fence.

Absent from these charts is anything running on iOS. We're still waiting for a version of 3DMark for iOS unfortunately. If our previous results are any indication however, Qualcomm's Adreno 320 seems to be hot on the heels of the GPU performance of the 4th generation iPad:

In our GL/DXBenchmark comparison we noted Microsoft's Surface Pro (Intel HD 4000 graphics) managed to deliver 3x the performance of the 4th generation iPad. Will 3DMark agree?

All of these tests are run at the default 720p settings. The key comparisons to focus on are Surface Pro (Intel HD 4000), VivoTab Smart (Intel Clover Trail/SGX 545) and the HTC One (Snapdragon 600/Adreno 330). I've borrowed the test descriptions from this morning's article.

Graphics Test 1

Ice Storm Graphics test 1 stresses the hardware’s ability to process lots of vertices while keeping the pixel load relatively light. Hardware on this level may have dedicated capacity for separate vertex and pixel processing. Stressing both capacities individually reveals the hardware’s limitations in both aspects.

In an average frame, 530,000 vertices are processed leading to 180,000 triangles rasterized either to the shadow map or to the screen. At the same time, 4.7 million pixels are processed per frame.

Pixel load is kept low by excluding expensive post processing steps, and by not rendering particle effects.

In this mostly geometry bound test, Surface Pro does extremely well. As we saw in our GL/DXBenchmark comparison however, the ARM based Android platforms don't seem to deliver the most competitive triangle throughput.

Graphics Test 2

Graphics test 2 stresses the hardware’s ability to process lots of pixels. It tests the ability to read textures, do per pixel computations and write to render targets.

On average, 12.6 million pixels are processed per frame. The additional pixel processing compared to Graphics test 1 comes from including particles and post processing effects such as bloom, streaks and motion blur.

In each frame, an average 75,000 vertices are processed. This number is considerably lower than in Graphics test 1 because shadows are not drawn and the processed geometry has a lower number of polygons.

The more pixel shader bound test seems to agree with what we've seen already: Intel's HD 4000 appears to deliver around 3x the performance of the fastest ultra mobile GPUs, obviously at higher power consumption. In the PC space a 3x gap would seem huge, but taking power consumption into account it doesn't seem all that big of a gap here.

Physics Test

The purpose of the Physics test is to benchmark the hardware’s ability to do gameplay physics simulations on CPU. The GPU load is kept as low as possible to ensure that only the CPU’s capabilities are stressed.

The test has four simulated worlds. Each world has two soft bodies and two rigid bodies colliding with each other. One thread per available logical CPU core is used to run simulations. All physics are computed on the CPU with soft body vertex data updated to the GPU each frame. The background is drawn as a static image for the least possible GPU load.

The Physics test uses the Bullet Open Source Physics Library.

Surprisingly enough, the CPU bound physics test has Surface Pro delivering 2.3x the performance of the Snapdragon 600 based HTC One. Quad-core Cortex A15 based SoCs will likely eat into this gap considerably. What will be most interesting is to see how the ARM and x86 platforms converge when they are faced with similar power/thermal constraints. 

What was particularly surprising to me is just how poorly Intel's Atom Z2560 (Clover Trail) does in this test. Granted the physics benchmark is very thread heavy, but the fact that four Cortex A9s can handily outperform two 32nm Atom cores is pretty impressive. Intel hopes to fix this with its first out-of-order Atom later this year, but that chip will also have to contend with Cortex A15 based competitors.

Ice Storm - Overall Score

The overall score seems to agree with what we learned from the GL/DXBenchmark comparison. Intel's HD 4000 delivers around 3x the graphics performance of the leading ultra mobile GPUs, while consuming far more power. Haswell will drive platform power down, but active power should still be appreciably higher than the ARM based competition. I've heard rumblings of sub-10W TDP (not SDP) Haswell parts, so we may see Intel move down the power curve a bit more aggressively than I've been expecting publicly. The move to 14nm, and particularly the shift to Skylake in 2015 will bring about true convergence between the Ultrabook and 10-inch tablet markets. Long term I wonder if the 10-inch tablet market won't go away completely, morphing into a hybird market (think Surface Pro-style devices) with 7 - 8 inch tablets taking over.

It's almost not worth it to talk about Clover Trail here. The platform is just bad when it comes to graphics performance. You'll notice I used ASUS' VivoTab Smart here and in the GL/DXBenchmark comparison instead of Acer's W510. That's not just because of preference. I couldn't get the W510 to reliably complete GL/DXBenchmark without its graphics driver crashing. It's very obvious to me that Intel didn't spend a lot of time focusing on 3D performance or driver stability with Clover Trail. It's disappointing that even in 2012/2013 there are parts of Intel that still don't take GPU performance seriously.

The next-generation 22nm Intel Atom SoC will integrate Intel's gen graphics core (same architecture as HD 4000, but with fewer EUs). The move to Intel's own graphics core should significantly modernize Atom performance. The real question is how power efficient it will be compared to the best from Imagination Tech and Qualcomm.

ASUS Zenbook UX51VZ: Great Laptop, High Price

Meet the ASUS Zenbook UX51VZ

I have quite a few laptops that have been languishing in a non-fully-reviewed state for a while. The New Year has been a bit crazy, and in the midst of trying to update the benchmark suite and some other items, the time for a full review is long since passed. We’re finally done with our 2013 Mobile Benchmark Suite, and as we’ll have a variety of laptops to review in the coming weeks, I thought the UX51VZ was a good start for our new test suite. I won’t include every chart in this short review, but here’s the quick summary.

The ASUS Zenbook UX51VZ is a nice looking laptop that takes the core of the thicker N56V type chassis and thins it out, at the same time going for an aluminum chassis. At the same time, ASUS has upgraded the LCD to a nice quality IPS 1080p panel (anti-glare no less!), which is about as good as you’re going to find in Windows laptops right now—though I suspect laptops like the soon-to-launch Toshiba KIRAbook may have something to say about that shortly.

As you might guess from the “[xxx]book” names, these laptops are gunning for Apple’s MacBook Pro (Retina) in terms of overall experience. While I personally feel they fall short in some areas (the Retina still has a better LCD that’s factory calibrated to deliver good color accuracy), they’re also less expensive and they’re designed from the ground up to run Windows. That won’t be sufficient to win back users who have switched to Apple, but it might be enough to entice those contemplating the change to stick with Windows a while longer.

Cooler Master Seidon 240M and 12 More Coolers: The Retest and Mega-Roundup

(Click to Enlarge)

 Cooler Testing Revisited

Until recently we haven't been very aggressive in testing CPU cooling methods. I'd been busy with notebooks, desktops, cases, and peripherals, but good and consistent writers are hard to come by in this industry, and eventually I couldn't say no. Tentatively, I gave it the old college try, starting with two radiator fan roundups and then doing multiple liquid cooling roundups. Interestingly, it was when more conventional air cooling popped up on my radar that things got complicated.

The cooling testbed was and is solid. We use a 200mm BitFenix Spectre Pro that's throttled to 5V as an intake, and that's in the front of a BitFenix Shinobi XL enclosure, a case which is almost perfect for our needs. The low speed on the Spectre Pro allows for intake of cool air without negatively affecting noise testing, and for closed loop liquid cooling, this is fine. Where things get more dicey is when you introduce an air cooler into the testbed, because as a couple of you rightfully pointed out, without an exhaust fan to direct air, air coolers suffer tremendously performance wise. To be certain I took our original testbed, added a 140mm Noctua fan with a low noise adaptor, and mounted it to the rear exhaust of the Shinobi XL. Even with a minimally powered exhaust fan, the differences in performance were pronounced. Since this is the situation air coolers will typically find themselves in, I'm now using that exhaust fan for testing air coolers. Closed loop coolers continue to do without.

(Click to Enlarge)

There was one other wrinkle with the existing testbed: our motherboard just wasn't especially stable, and if it crashed, it was difficult to get it to post again. Recently, this became easy to remedy: the micro-ATX board I was originally using for case testing was retired in favor of a full ATX board. Switching over to the Gigabyte GA-Z68MX-UD2H-B3 meant having a more reliable and more fearsome overclock on the Intel Core i7-2700K. Now the chip runs hotter, the socket lines up correctly with the hole in the case's motherboard tray,and it's more stable overall.

Of course all of these changes mean one important thing: a lot of coolers needed to be retested under these more stressful (but also sometimes more ideal) conditions. To be sure, the previous roundups are still useful for comparing products in their individual categories, but now liquid coolers aren't the juggernauts they used to be. Out of the coolers we've already tested, I selected ten to be revisited: five air coolers and five closed loop liquid coolers.

Coinciding with these revisions is our evaluation of Cooler Master's Seidon 240M closed loop cooler along with two new tower coolers from Noctua, the NH-U12S and NH-U14S, both of which were designed to create clearance for memory modules with tall heatsinks. The Seidon 240M is noteworthy because it's not directly sourced from Asetek or CoolIT Systems as many of these products are, and uses a proprietary waterblock design that theoretically improves overall cooling performance.

Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review

Pros

• Screen, screen, screen!
• Thin
• Strong performance
• Excellent speakers

Cons

• Very expensive for performance level
• Increased costs for repair and battery replacement
• Few applications ready for Retina at this time
• Performance issues with some browsing
• Quick Take:
  The MacBook Pro with Retina Display is a bit of the past and a bit of the future, wrapped up into one tasty, toasty present. Brilliant screen meets refined design.
  
  

  Overview

  The next-generation MacBook Pro with Retina Display - it's a mouthful of a name. Apple's latest notebook represents the culmination of a number of trends from one of the industry's most visible players - from unibody aluminum construction to soldered-in components; from solid-state storage to the much-vaunted Retina Display.

  Apple clearly has a vision for where they want to take portable computing, and while impressive, it has its drawbacks, too. Let's jump into things by taking a look at the MacBook Pro's most talked about feature: its stunningly high resolution display.

  Apple started the trend of ultra-high resolution screens with the iPhone 4, back in 2010. The iPhone 4's display doubled each dimension of pixels over its predecessor from 480x320 to 960x640. The iPad 3 did the same thing - the best-selling tablet jumped from 1024x768 to 2048x1536.

  A Retina-enabled MacBook Pro follows the same trajectory. Previously, the 15-inch MacBook Pro shipped with a standard resolution of 1440x900. This new MacBook Pro, then, uses 2880x1800, which equals a more than 5 Megapixel image. In terms of sharpness, it figures out to almost 221 pixels per inch. This compares to 315ppi for the iPhone, and 264ppi for the iPad.

  So why are they still called Retina I mean, "retina screens" are just a marketing concept, but there exists real science behind the nomenclature.

  It has to do with how your eye works, and how you use your specific device. You hold a phone closer than a tablet, and you'll probably hold a tablet closer to you than you would your laptop. So despite the MacBook Pro employing a lower pixel density than its more mobile counterparts, it still gets to lay claim to the Retina Display name.

  If you're handy with math, you can figure out that your HDTV is probably pretty close to Retina quality, in terms of your ability to distinguish between individual pixels, now.

  The screen - oh my god, the screen

  While the sharpness plays a role in how good the screen looks - and the new MacBook Pro's screen looks better than any other notebook that has ever existed, bar none - so does the panel technology. I want to make that clear - if display quality is paramount to you, for whatever reason, this is the only laptop you should remotely be considering. It's simply that good. Apple uses IPS screens in their next-gen MBP, just like in the iPhone and iPad. It's a welcome step up from the screens they've used in the past; as TN panels, they suffered from color distortions and poor viewing angles.

  *Note - see the comments at the end of the article for a couple of notes on color accuracy.

  These new screens fix all of that.

  You might hope that with such a high resolution display, we've finally entered the era of resolution independence. Regrettably, it's not quite the case. As a result, Apple has been forced to hack together a way to make balance the sharpness of the display and the usability of the UI. Mind you, "hack together" makes it sound worse than it is; as these solutions go, it is really quite elegant, and quite a bit better than simply changing the DPI settings in Windows.

  When you boot the MacBook Pro up for the first time and dive into the resolution settings, you'll be confronted with a new settings pane. Apple forces you to choose between two options: one is balanced by default for the Retina Display ("Best for Retina display"), while the others let you choose between five different resolution settings

  Unlike traditional screens, there aren't any resolution numbers here. At least, not at first. Inside of the 'Scaled' option, you get to choose between five different display orientations. Larger text, which Apple says "Looks like 1024x640", one higher, "Looks like 1280x800", the 'Best for Retina' default, "Looks like 1440x900", a fourth, which "Looks like 1680x1050", and 'More Space', which "Looks like 1920x1200".

  A warning pops up beneath any non-default resolution that "Using a scaled resolution may reduce performance." This is because Apple doesn't simply scale any resolution beneath 2880x1800 up to the native resolution of the panel - they do a little scaling wizardry.

  For the 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 modes, OS X actually renders the display at 3360x2100 and 3840x2400, respectively. They do this in order to supersample the ultra-high (9.21MP!) resolution and maximize the clarity of the non-native resolution. Clear it is, too; it's probably the clearest screen we've seen for an LCD displaying non-native imagery.

  Retina vs. non-retina

  Applications that are "Retina-aware", however, get to employ even more trickery! If you're mucking about in software such as Aperture, iMovie, Final Cut Pro X, or most other Apple applications (Adobe has promised Photoshop updates, but they've not yet been released), the UI elements get doubled, but the media - photos, videos, etc. - get displayed on a 1:1 basis. If you're editing, for example, a 3000:2000 image in Aperture, you'd get to see the entire image displayed on screen, while the UI remains clearly visible. It's a neat sort of hybrid resolution that lets crafty developers really take advantage of super pixel dense displays.

  Software that isn't Retina-aware, however, doesn't fare nearly as well. Anything that isn't rendered on screen by some sort of OS API looks fuzzy. That means that any web browsing, unless you use the included Safari browser, isn't going to look so hot. A lot of legacy applications, unless updated, will look similarly.

  Compare this, meanwhile, with how things are handled in Microsoft's Windows OS. When you install Windows via Apple's Boot Camp software, then install the Boot Camp drivers, Apple makes a few modifications for you. The DPI is changed, for example, making fonts and some UI elements look larger than normal - it's a pretty clunky result.

  You do have a lot more freedom to set how you want things displayed, however, including the ability to push the screen to its native, 2880x1800, eye-searing max. Seriously. Eye-searing. It's sort of interesting, in an academic sense, to run the OS at that resolution, but it's pretty uncomfortable. Windows doesn't by default allow you to pick a pixel-quartered resolution of 1440x900, either, which is puzzling. Unless you really need to stay in Windows, you should probably avoid it; unlike prior Intel-based Macs, OS X just plain looks better.

  The real exception to this is Metro. The Start Screen and Metro applications look gorgeous at the full 2880x1800 display, with things rendered at human-readable sizes. Everything just looks pretty. Still, Metro isn't supremely useful on the desktop quite just yet, but that's a story for another day.

  Viewing angles Solid - you can lay the display flat against a table and not experience the color shift and distortion you find on other screens. Backlighting was similarly commendable, with zero noticeable light bleeds - everything is really quite surprisingly uniform.

  According to our measurements, the average static contrast ratio was roughly 945:1, which is quite good for a mobile display. Parts of the screen ranged from 827:1 to 1048:1, but on the whole, the differences are completely unnoticeable to the naked eye.

  One of the specifications picked up by a lot of tech blogs and papers after the WWDC announcement was the fact that the new MacBook Pro with Retina (abbreviated herein as rMBP for brevity) featured a "less glossy" screen. It's true - the display is less glossy. That's because Apple finally managed to rid themselves of that ridiculous extra panel of glass in front of the LCD.

  I have never been a fan of pushing screens in that direction, since it adds a frustrating amount of extra gloss, shine and reflection, not to mention thickness and weight. In this respect, the rMBP is very similar to the MacBook Airs. The new panel has glass bonded directly to the screen. It's still glossy, but it's actually usable at angles, unlike some MacBooks in the recent past (glare monsters).

  Impressively thin

  I know it seems overboard, but I really can't speak highly enough about the display on this computer. This is the measure by which future displays will be judged.

  The rest of the rMBP's design is still impressive, if subdued. It looks mostly like its predecessor, save for the fact that it's about a quarter of an inch thinner. Coming in at 0.71 inches, the new MacBook Pro is just three hundredths of an inch thicker than the MacBook Air line - of course, the rMBP doesn't follow the same wedge-shaped design; it runs straight in all directions, apart from some tapering at the edge.

  It all adds up to an impressively thin profile. There are definitely thinner notebooks on the market, but none that can match the same feature set. Similarly, the new rMBP weighs 4.46 pounds - not the lightest we've seen for a 15-inch notebook, but still impressive. Users used to an old MBP will appreciate the weight reduction, while those jumping ship from a MacBook Air may find it a bit clunky in comparison.

  As a whole, the build quality is impressive; the machine feels like a solid block of aluminum. There's little to no give anywhere on the computer, and the hinges are stiff without being exasperating. Fun note: thanks to the engineering upgrades to the screen, there wasn't an easy way for Apple to blaze their logo all over the bottom of the bezel, and so it got stuck on the underside of the machine. The pure minimalism of the design is impressive, as a result.

  Ports and features

  The MacBook Pro with Retina Display has a full two Thunderbolt ports. This underused high-speed interconnect is looking to come into its own over the next year, as we've seen a number of companies prepping compatible products for release (let's hope they actually make it to market).

  

  These can serve as mini-DisplayPort ports, too, with no special adapter required, save for converting mini-DP to DP. They're located on the left side of the notebook. An HDMI port on the right, the first on an Apple portable, means that you can hook up three external displays. The built-in screen makes it four. I have a USB 3.0 - HDMI adapter sitting here, but haven't tried it yet; five displays would be weirdly impressive. The MagSafe adapter has been shrunk down to fit into the smaller chassis; Apple replaced the "L" style connector to the previous "T" style one.

  While the "T" style adapter had issues with fraying, it looks like Apple addressed that by sheathing the connector in the same aluminum as the rest of the notebook.

  Speaking of USB, Apple has finally made the jump from USB 2.0 to USB 3.0. It has taken them an unforgivably long time to make the switch, which was delayed until Intel added support natively into their Ivy Bridge chipsets. There's one USB port on either side. A headphone jack on the left and SD card slot on the right round out the port selection.

  There is no optical drive on this notebook. It's part of the way that Apple saved both thickness and weight, and given the trends, unlikely to be missed by most people. OS X still supports the ability to use the optical drive on another networked computer, however, so between that and cheap USB drives, you should be good to go if you really need to read discs.

  

  The expansion issue is probably Apple's most controversial decision. That is to say, the new MacBook Pro with Retina Display can't be upgraded. Period. The RAM is soldered down, the CPU is soldered down. The GPU is on-board. The SSD features a proprietary shape and port (though at least it isn't soldered down, too). Even the battery, which lost easy swappability with the advent of the unibody MacBook construction, is glued directly to the chassis.

  OWC and other companies will probably come up with a compatible third-party SSD, just like they did with the Air. That does little to change the static nature of the rest of the machine - you'd better decide up front how much memory you're going to need.

  Fortunately, 8GB of RAM is the default shipping option - which it should be, at that price - and for most people, that's going to be more than enough. Despite what many enthusiasts think, most people never bother upgrading the memory on their laptops, and RAM, past the first weeks of ownership, rarely out and out fails.

  What is most regrettable about this new design is the battery. Since Apple glues the battery straight onto the body of the machine, getting the battery replaced means that the entire top portion of the machine will need to be replaced. That brings extra cost, which gets passed directly onto the consumer - in this case, it'll be a $199 fee, or $70 more than the other portables. Even though heavy use should see three or more years out of the battery before noticeable degradation sets in, it's an annoying principle.

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Facebook's "Open Compute" Server tested

Facebook Technology Overview

Facebook had 22 Million active users in the middle of 2007; fast forward to 2011 and the site now has 800 Million active users, with 400 million of them logging in every day. Facebook has grown exponentially, to say the least! To cope with this kind of exceptional growth and at the same time offer a reliable and cost effective service requires out of the box thinking. Typical high-end, brute force, ultra redundant software and hardware platforms (for example Oracle RAC databases running on top of a few IBM Power 795 systems) won’t do as they're too complicated, power hungry, and most importantly far too expensive for such extreme scaling.

Facebook first focused on thoroughly optimizing their software architecture, which we will cover briefly. The next step was the engineers at Facebook deciding to build their own servers to minimize the power and cost of their server infrastructure. Facebook Engineering then open sourced these designs to the community; you can download the specifications and mechanical CAD designsat the Open Compute site.

The Facebook Open Compute server design is ambitious: “The result is a data center full of vanity free servers which is 38% more efficient and 24% less expensive to build and run than other state-of-the-art data centers.” Even better is that Facebook Engineering sent two of these Open Compute servers to our lab for testing, allowing us to see how these servers compare to other solutions in the market.

As a competing solution we have an HP DL380 G7 in the lab. Recall from our last server clash that the HP DL380 G7 was one of the most power efficient servers of 2010. Is a server "targeted at the cloud" and designed by Facebook engineering able to beat one of the best and most popular general purpose servers? That is the question we'll answer in this article.

Corsair Obsidian 350D Case Review

Introducing the Corsair Obsidian 350D

It seems like just yesterday we were talking about Corsair's gargantuan Obsidian 900D, a behemoth designed with the single goal of housing as much computer as you can possibly imagine. The Obsidian 900D supersized the already successful 800D (along with its price tag), and judging from the comments left on the review it's exactly what a lot of the watercooling enthusiasts were waiting for.

What you may not be aware of is the fact that the 900D ran...a little late. I had one of the early review units, and it had actually been sitting in my living room for some time before the new embargo date hit and gave me a deadline. That's part of the reason why we're seeing another case from Corsair as quickly as we are; had the 900D been on time this still would've seemed like a pretty quick turnaround time. Proving someone over there has a sense of humor, though, Corsair is following up their largest case with their smallest.

I'm actually a little disappointed that the campaign around the 350D was basically subsumed by the 900D, because of the two cases I think the micro-ATX 350D is actually the more interesting one. With the 900D, the sky is really the limit as to what you can put in it (or more accurately, your wallet is the limit). The 350D, on the other hand, is a case for people who thrive on limitations. That's not to say the case has limitations, per se, but when you're confined to the micro-ATX standard you start having to make creative decisions. As you'll see, Corsair made a few of their own that make the 350D a particularly interesting specimen in what's often one of the most diverse enclosure categories.

Corsair Obsidian 350D Specifications
Motherboard Form Factor		Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX
Drive Bays	External	2x 5.25"
	Internal	3x 2.5", 2x 3.5"
Cooling	Front	1x 140mm intake fan (supports 2x 120mm/140mm)
	Rear	1x 120mm exhaust fan
	Top	2x 120mm/140mm fan mount
	Side	-
	Bottom	-
Expansion Slots		5
I/O Port		2x USB 3.0, 1x Headphone, 1x Mic
Power Supply Size		ATX
Clearances	HSF	160mm
	PSU	200mm
	GPU	300mm
Dimensions		17.3" x 8.3" x 17.7" 440mm x 210mm x 450mm
Weight		13.3 lbs. / 6.1 kg
Special Features		USB 3.0 via internal header Removable drive cages Removable filters on intakes and bottom Supports 280mm radiators
Price		$99/$109 (without window/with window) MSRP

What needs to be considered in evaluating the Corsair Obsidian 350D is that this case is pretty clearly designed capitalize on liquid cooling. While my experiences with Corsair's closed loop coolers have been inconsistent, everyone benefits from them having a 280mm cooler like the H110 in their lineup. The existence of a 280mm cooler in Corsair's portfolio doesn't necessarily demand they include a place to mount it in all subsequent case designs, but it makes a convincing argument.

The reviewer's guide makes a big deal about using the 350D for water cooling, both with Corsair's products and with custom loops. There are five total fan mounts, and all of them support radiators: the top of the case features two 120mm/140mm mounts, the front of the case features another pair of 120mm/140mm mounts (and the 3.5" drive cage is removable), and then the rear of the case features a 120mm fan mount. What does surprise me is that Corsair opted not to include an additional fan mount beneath the drive cage, in the bottom of the case. It feels like a missed opportunity.