# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `BPFLAND` with over 0.5% higher average FPS compared to other runs. * **Smoothest FPS**: `LAVD` with approximately 10% lower FPS variance. * **Best overall**: Both `BPFLAND` and `LAVD` could be considered, however, `LAVD` provides smoother FPS with only a slight decrease in average FPS. # Issues: * The `BORE` run showed notably higher FPS variance, making it less stable in comparison to others (about 30-40% higher variance). * The `LAVD` run reported a higher GPU temperature by 5% compared to others, which might not directly affect FPS but is noteworthy. * The `BPFLAND Prev Next` run has a similarly good profile but slightly higher variances in FPS, making it slightly less appealing as compared to `BPFLAND`. # Summary This benchmark compares different scheduling techniques (`BORE` vs `scx_bpfland` versions and `scx_lavd`) using similar hardware and software environments. The goal was to identify the best performing scheduler. The `BPFLAND` version achieved the highest average FPS among the tests, whereas `LAVD` provided a more consistent and smoother experience with significantly lower FPS variance. Despite achieving slightly lower average FPS, `LAVD` could be preferred for scenarios demanding stability. From this analysis, it's evident that `scx_bpfland` variations and `scx_lavd` can significantly influence gaming performance, with `LAVD` excelling in terms of stability and `BPFLAND` leading in raw FPS performance.