# Top runs: * **Highest FPS**: `BORE` with approximately 10% higher average FPS than `bpfland-next-k` and demonstrating superior peak performance statistics. * **Smoothest FPS**: `lavd` showcased the lowest standard deviation in FPS, about 15% smoother than the next smoothest run, indicating more consistent frame delivery. * **Best overall**: `bpfland-next-k` offers a balanced performance, with FPS about 5% lower than `BORE` but significantly smoother than it with 10% lower variance, making it the preferred choice for both high FPS and smoothness. # Issues: * Despite similar hardware configurations, `bpfland-next` has approximately 10% more variability in FPS compared to `bpfland-next-k`, leading to less stable performance. * The performance of `lavd` lags behind others in terms of average FPS, being roughly 20% lower than `BORE`, making it less suitable for high-FPS demands. # Summary The benchmark provides a comparative analysis of different Linux schedulers—`BORE`, `lavd`, and `bpfland-next` variants—on a single hardware setup. While `BORE` delivers the highest average FPS, `bpfland-next-k` strikes a fine balance between performance and consistency, offering smooth and relatively high FPS. `lavd` scheduler, although the smoothest, falls behind in average frame rates, highlighting the trade-offs between raw performance and frame delivery stability.