Not saying anything bad about Liquorix, no doubt guy behind maintaining it knows his stuff. No doubt more than myself. Of course tried it and liked it anyway. Was one of the ways I started out learning about the topic, installed various "high performance" desktop kernels and checked out the .config files used with them. Of course Liquorix was included in this process, he includes a bunch of patches and uses some config's I don't prefer or think best(for me.) Plus he's still got to cater to a wider range of usecases and preferences than I do. For example I remove support for varied filesystems I never intend to use which are ordinarily compiled into most kernels. End result yep, somewhat smaller kernel thus somewhat less memory overhead etc. So still when I have the opportunity prefer to compile my own.
NOTE: Such dorking with a kernel can be a double edged sword too of course. Remove support for ext2, later go to dork with ext2 and not remember it's compiled out of the kernel. WHY ISN'T IT WORKING !! AHHHHHH !!!!!! Lmao, been there ... done that, got the shirt and the shirt says "I'm a dumbazz who fiddled with my Linux kernel and forgot what I fiddled with".
Though yeah, when you want the kernel to focus on doing tasks with better throughput (ie: compiling) then lower timer interrupt (100hz) and non-preemptive is better. Same kernel .config used, higher clock-freq, then yeah, running same tasks at a higher freq is bound to get done faster, bound to get more done/faster.
Personally never been able to get much better than what comes set in stock kernel, yes some but nothing mind-blowing. Which is why you see almost everybody saying custom compiling isn't worth it and truthfully I mostly agree. Though obviously not fully agree as can be some benefits, faster boot, lower memory footprint, more responsive desktop apps, somewhat lower cores temps and load avgs. So still personally consider it worth doing, I don't apply anything by way of patches as I've still got much to learn on the topic. It's a one time thing in many ways or a couple times on a given system. The hurdle is all the time involved in learning what even matters as pertains the subject and that's CONSIDERABLE. Took me quite a bit of time/effort to somewhat understand and thus get any benefit out of compiling my own kernel. Really isn't worth it mainly, someone wants a higher performance kernel tailored to desktop and meant for better performing real-time applications then yeah, which many audio-video apps do work better w more appropriate kernel config's than what's stock. People want these things (and what desktop nixer doesn't) better to just install one from a trusted source and call it done. Which guess Liquorix qualifies it's been around and widely used forever.
At least check out what comes stock in the repo's. The time involved mostly negates any possible benefits from learning about custom config'ing kernels. I knew this, still wanted to learn about it and custom compile just for the sake of it, considering the Linux kernel is the heart of gnu/Linux. Also I'd gotten to the point of thinking tweaking kernel config's can't possibly be worth it, someone should just install a packaged high performance deal on desktop and get on with life. Apparently I'm wrong as a distro named Clear OS is somehow doing this. Seen folks refering to the config'ing and patching they're doing to the kernel as being like overclocking without having to set it up. It's kicking all hell out of other distro's kernel choices in Phoronix or whatever testing thing. I'm not at the point where I can really understand all involved but it's causing a stir in varied places and prompting discussion.
When comes to custom compile I have seen gains, again ... nothing mind blowing but quantifiable gains. I mean the output of "top", "uptime","ps_mem", lm-sensors, "systemd-analyze", how quickly applications load and their latencies/responsiveness and actually timing the thing to working desktop vs a stock kernel are not just someone's impressions or opinions, that data is indisputable fact. Recently came up with a saying for something I've long believed. Introducing my TTT rule (three-t rule), goes like this "Tuning without Testing is Tarded." Lol ... totally true all this I think it's faster/better, feels like it's faster crap is just that ... pure crap in my view.
Though kernel config and how something like affect or benefit as it's related to something like proc-core freqs are joined at the hip. Sheesh same as pertains to anything hardware and gnu/Linux, kernel's the core of it all. Again with the example of a real-time app or a process that needs cpu time and needs it NOW to work best. A kernel config'ed with non-preempt won't give it cpu-time when/as requested, will tell it wait in line with all the other processes, voluntary preempt might not give that process time. Imagine the likely impact on how well that app performs in this. Other ways to fiddle with it anyway, like when checking in terminal, the pulseaudio process is given a nice value of -11 vs the others.