This brings two popular idioms to my mind: 1) Benchmarking apples against oranges, and 2) bytecode has snowball's chance in hell to outperform native code
Instead of comparing apples and oranges, an even better analogy is comparing apples with apple trees.
OPascal is a language you create a "Java language" with. I have several articles bookmarked about that very subject "creating compilers with delphi". This series of articles has you building COMPILERS exactly like the "Java compiler" they are benching against,using Delphi!
So how in the world are they even in the same category?
Would you use you "Java compiler" to construct a new, custom compiler?
No, you would use the language for building compilers. Assembly,Opascal, or C.
The beauty of using OPascal is you get true object oriented code at the deepest genetic level possible. You have all the benefits of OP for low level tasks (like compilers) as you do for gui apps. And remember this, we ASSUME that the OP model comes with overhead, hence slower, than say, Assembly or C. This is actually not so much the case at all because the object model was incorporated into the compiler itself. So OPascal is like an "Assembly driver" almost it seems and very closely coupled with the underlying Assembly itself vs. your Java compiler which could have been WRITTEN in Opascal.
So basically OPascal stands alone in many ways...Still...and always has since TurboPascal days