First, this indicates some sort of deep confusion about the purpose of benchmarks in the first place. Benchmarks are performance tests, not popularity tests. And I don't think I'm just jumping on a bit of bad wording, because I see this idea in its various forms a lot poking out in a lot of conversations. Python is popular because there are many aspects to it, among which is the fact that yes, it really is a rather slow language, but the positives outweigh it for many purposes. They don't cancel it. Python's other positive aspects do not speed it up; indeed, they're actually critically tied to why it is slow in the first place. If they were not, Python would not be slow. It has had a lot of work done on it over the years, after all.
Secondly, I think people sort of chant "microbenchmarks are useless", but they aren't useless. I find that microbenchmark actually represents some fairly realistic representation of the relative performance of those various languages. What they are not is totally determinative. You can't divide one language's microbenchmark on this test by another to get a "Python is 160x slower than C". This is, in fact, not an accurate assessment; if you want a single unified number, 40-50 is much closer. But "useless" is way too strong. No language is so wonderful on all other dimensions that it can have something as basic as a function call be dozens of times slower than some other language and yet keep up with that other language in general. (Assuming both languages have had production-quality optimizations applied to them and one of them isn't some very very young language.) It is a real fact about these languages, it is not a huge outlier, and it is a problem I've encountered in real codebases before when I needed to literally optimize out function calls in a dynamic scripting language to speed up certain code to acceptable levels, because function calls in dynamic scripting languages really are expensive in a way that really can matter. It shouldn't be overestimated and used to derive silly "x times faster/slower" values, but at the same time, if you're dismissing these sorts of things, you're throwing away real data. There are no languages that are just as fast as C, except gee golly they just happen to have this one thing where function calls are 1000 times slower for no reason even though everything else is C-speed. These performance differences are reasonably correlated.