## Top runs - **Highest FPS**: `bpfland-next-9141da8` had the highest average FPS, approximately 8% higher than `main-fc0d1bd`. - **Smoothest FPS**: `main-fc0d1bd` had the smoothest FPS with the lowest standard deviation, approximately 30% less variability compared to `bpfland-next-9141da8`. - **Best overall**: While `bpfland-next-9141da8` had significantly higher average FPS, `main-fc0d1bd` offered smoother performance. Given the substantial stability difference, `main-fc0d1bd` is chosen as the best overall run for its balance of moderately high FPS and significantly smoother experience. ## Issues - `bpfland-next-9141da8` showed significant fluctuation with its FPS standard deviation being about 37% higher than `main-fc0d1bd`. This indicates less stability and could be perceived as performance inconsistency during gameplay. ## Summary The benchmark data for both runs, `bpfland-next-9141da8` and `main-fc0d1bd`, on the same hardware and software setup indicates that `bpfland-next-9141da8` had a higher average FPS but with greater variability in frame rate. The `main-fc0d1bd` run was more stable, showcasing the least fluctuation in FPS. Both runs exhibit different strengths: `bpfland-next-9141da8` excels in raw FPS performance, while `main-fc0d1bd` triumphs in stability. The significant variability in `bpfland-next-9141da8` suggests it's less consistent, which impacts user experience negatively. Therefore, `main-fc0d1bd` is determined to be the best overall due to its balanced performance.