# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `Bpfland` with a significantly higher average FPS compared to the others, providing the best frame rate performance. * **Smoothest FPS**: `Rustland` has the lowest standard deviation in both FPS and frame time, ensuring the most consistent performance. * **Best overall**: `Rustland-next` strikes a balance with a good average FPS and relatively low standard deviation and variance, offering both performance and consistency. # Issues: * The second run, focusing on the `Rustland` feature, noticeably underperforms in terms of FPS, having approximately 46% lower average FPS compared to the others. Though it maintains stability with low variance, the significantly lower FPS makes it less optimal. * Different average GPU load was observed, with earlier Rustland implementations using considerably less of the GPU capacity than others, approximately 54% less compared to the highest. * The configurations in all runs are consistent, except for the observed performance and resource utilization differences directly tied to the features compared. # Summary This benchmark comparison features different Rustland implementations under identical hardware and software environments while utilizing the `powersave` Linux scheduler. It's evident that the `Bpfland` implementation excels in raw performance, achieving the highest average FPS, whereas the `Rustland` version, though stable, trails behind in frame rate significantly. The `Rustland-next` offers a balanced approach, providing a reasonable blend of performance and stability, making it an optimal choice for users seeking both. These results highlight the considerable impact of Rustland feature implementation on gaming performance, with variations in resource usage and output efficiency dictating the outcomes.