# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `BORE`, with a mean frame rate approximately 1% higher than the second-best, showcasing its superior performance in terms of frame rate. * **Smoothest FPS**: `LAVD`, with the lowest standard deviation and variance, offering the most stable frame delivery despite having a lower average FPS. * **Best overall**: `BORE`, given its top performance in FPS and consistent frame time stability, surpassing the slight advantages of the smoothest FPS in terms of overall gaming and visualization quality. # Issues: * The "BPFLAND Prev Next" and "LAVD" configurations showed significantly lower FPS, with both runs having over 5% lower average FPS compared to the others. This indicates a noticeable drop in performance. The "BPFLAND Prev Next" configuration further faces a variance in its GPU core clock, suggesting instability. * All configurations used similar hardware and software, indicating that the differences in FPS may stem purely from scheduler differences. # Summary The benchmark primarily highlighted the differences across various schedulers in a controlled environment with the same hardware and software setup. The `BORE` scheduler stood out by providing the highest FPS with consistent frame time, making it the best choice for high-performance requirements. Meanwhile, the `LAVD` configuration offered the most stable frame delivery but lagged behind in average FPS. Meanwhile, the "BPFLAND Prev Next" exhibited notable performance degradation despite similar system parameters, emphasizing the impact of scheduler choice. Overall, these results showcase the variability in performance across different schedulers while keeping other variables constant.