If I'm reading their chart right, they have barely half as much memory for their RISC-V machine compared to any of the others? I don't know enough to know whether it's actually bottlenecked by memory, but it's a bit odd to claim it's slower, give those numbers, and not say anything about it. I'd hope they ruled that out as the source of the discrepancy, but it's hard to tell without confirmation.
That sounds a lot less "RISC-V is slow" and more like "the most money I'm willing to spend on a RISC-V machine is low, but the more powerful ones may or not be as slow". I guess that doesn't make a particularly compelling headline.
