# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `Next 2` with a mean FPS higher than the other runs. * **Smoothest FPS**: `Next 3` with the lowest standard deviation and variance in FPS. * **Best overall**: `Next 3` combines a relatively high FPS and the smoothest performance. # Summary This benchmark compares the performance of the two schedulers, `BPFLAND` and `BPFLAND-NEXT`, under a CPU-limited static scene using consistent hardware and environmental settings across all runs. The `BPFLAND-NEXT` scheduler consistently outperforms `BPFLAND` in terms of average FPS and provides a smoother performance in terms of lower variance and standard deviation. The comparison highlights that `BPFLAND-NEXT` appears to be more optimized in both delivering higher FPS and maintaining consistent frame times, making it a favorable choice in this scenario.