Netburst have had horrible IPC, so in theory HT should've brought big improvements, yet in practice it didn't bring significantly more relative performance improvement than HT implementations of later Intel cores with much better IPC.
Adding to that SMT in Zen cores have brings slightly better relative performance compared to Intel cores (and Zen doesn't have as terrible IPC as Netburst), I think SMT implementation is not as trivial as we thought and before and its implementation indeed matters.
In the same way the single-core performance may be really good yet everything shared by SMT is still only utilized to half its potential so the 2nd thread runs almost as fast as the first.
I think the point of the article was more that people don't understand where HT/virtual SMT gets its speedup from.
Some years ago I worked on such an application, and we got a ~80% speed increase going from 4 threads to 8 threads on a 4-core with HT enabled. I wouldn't expect compute-bound applications to get anywhere near such gains.
Makes me wonder where those with a misconception got it from.
[0] https://www.anandtech.com/show/15578/cloud-clash-amazon-grav... ZEN1
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/9 ZEN2