Imagine: there is a paper discussing the techniques of weight lifting. Your complaint is that there are newer models of weights than those they lifted.
Then, measure the algorithms that run on one core, anyway, on the P4 and the latest Core iX. Your slow languages won't be faster than your fast ones just because the quoted changes were introduced to the processors in between.
It's actually quite hard to know what a given piece of code will do on a given microarchitecture even if on average it runs everything X% faster - you may find you're the bit of code that bites the big one and run X% slower on the new microarchitecture (e.g. you were depending on branch mispredicts being cheaper than they are) or suddenly your code runs way faster than competing codes (e.g. you're the superstar running 2X% faster because a sudden increase in ILP exposes that you've got a main loop full of independent operations).
On the other hand, the processors of 2000 are quite a bit different to the processors of 2011, and anyone who thinks that they can prove that this is irrelevant to the experiment in question by pure reasoning (rather than experimentation) is a moron, plain and simple.
Having tracked individual embodiments of algorithms over architectures from the P4 to Sandy Bridge, I can assure you that tradeoffs between particular approaches on an given problem vary wildy based on changes in microarchitecture.
Overall, there's a steady improvement and perhaps these languages are all gaining exactly the same (despite a substantial improvement in effective ILP from P4 to Core 2)... but I don't know that for sure and neither do you, despite your sophomoric self-assurance.
If only they could do the experiments on a processor from the last 5-6 years...naturally someone else could do the work for them, but why bother?