See my above comment - the choice of metrics in table 3.2 doesn't really make any sense. Also, they revived some ancient 1998 IBM chip, and report on that, for

See my above comment - the choice of metrics in table 3.2 doesn't really make any sense. Also, they revived some ancient 1998 IBM chip, and report on that, for no clear reason. They call it a 2004 benchmark, but what actually happened is that in 2004 someone made some synthetic variants and put them into a dataset. This is not some widely used benchmark in the field. Given their highly questionable choice of metrics, I would not be surprised if there was some serious cherry-picking on the benchmark as well.