I just want you to accurately represent the performance, which as I've noted is not a big change. If a 2x speedup is definitive, why are you so desperate to pus

I just want you to accurately represent the performance, which as I've noted is not a big change. If a 2x speedup is definitive, why are you so desperate to push the number higher? You give the speedup of vqsort over std::sort in ideal conditions (AVX-512) but when asked to take into account faster scalar sorts, you go to pdqsort's 2x factor (again this implies that it's the best available!) rather than fluxsort's 3x or ipnsort's 4x. No, I don't believe your current AVX2 performance will always be better than scalar algorithms. Lukas's benchmarks show... what, a 30% difference between vqsort and ipn in this case? I have 2-3x for random numbers (yes, other cases are not always this good) in Singeli sort, which I'm choosing not to promote until it's more mature. No, you don't need to range check in partitioning. If you don't understand how this can be achieved, that's your problem.