# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `flash` achieves a mean FPS approximately 4% higher than the other run, making it the top performer in frame rate. * **Smoothest FPS**: `rusty` has a standard deviation of FPS about 30% lower than the other run, highlighting its smoother performance. * **Best overall**: `flash` is the preferred choice for overall performance due to its higher FPS and acceptable smoothness compared to the competitor. # Summary In this benchmark comparing the performance of two Rust schedulers in the "Isonzo" game environment on a consistent set of hardware and software configurations, the `flash` scheduler stood out with a notably higher average FPS, although it displayed a slightly higher variability in frame delivery time. Meanwhile, the `rusty` scheduler offered a smoother gaming experience with lower frame time variability. Despite the `rusty` scheduler's smoother consistency, the `flash` scheduler's higher frame rate makes it a better choice for scenarios prioritizing speed over uniform frame timing. Both runs utilized the same hardware and system settings, ensuring the comparison is solely attributed to the differentiation in scheduler performance.