# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `BORE` (Mean FPS higher than others by approximately 4%). * **Smoothest FPS**: `BPFLAND` (lowest standard deviation, roughly 12% lower than other contenders). * **Best overall**: `BPFLAND` (best balance of high FPS and stability with a minor decrease in FPS for a significantly smoother experience). # Issues: * The second `BORE` configuration showed a remarkable reduction in performance compared to others, with FPS approximately 16% lower than the primary `BORE` configuration. Despite sharing identical hardware and software, this discrepancy in FPS suggests a performance issue with this specific configuration. * The `LAVD Autopilot` configuration exhibited the lowest FPS, being approximately 20% slower than the highest performer. Despite having a slightly lower variance, its overall performance was significantly worse than other configurations. * Different CPU and GPU loads did not result in notable performance improvements, indicating an efficiency issue rather than hardware limitation. # Summary This benchmark compares different scheduling strategies in a controlled environment using the same hardware and software on each run. The `BORE` configuration consistently excelled in delivering the highest average FPS, demonstrating the potential benefits of specific configurations within the tested environment. Meanwhile, the `BPFLAND` configuration provided the smoothest experience with notably less FPS variance, balancing performance and stability excellently. However, issues with the secondary `BORE` setup point to potential inefficiencies or misconfigurations specific to that setup. The `LAVD` configurations lagged behind, indicating some inherent limitations in the tested workload scenario, suggesting further optimization is needed to enhance their performance in competitive scenarios.