One commenter on Phoronix said that turning off SMT on a Zen 5 doesn't actually power off its resources, and if that's true then this test does nothing to test the power savings that could be realized by removing SMT entirely.
Moreover AMD's SMT since Zen has usually been considered a bigger boost to threaded workloads than Intel's hyperthreading, so Intel has less to lose by turning it off.
Lastly, the Phoronix article doesn't touch the theory behind Intel's plan with Lunar Lake. If I open Task Manager on my Ryzen 1800X during a moderately-threaded workload, every other logical core will be busy. The OS assigns work to the 8 physical cores first and only then begins to assign work to the "logical cores". SMT is useless until that 9th thread is scheduled. On Meteor Lake, work will be assigned to the 6 big cores and 8 little cores and so hyperthreading is useless until the 15th thread is scheduled.
Now Lunar Lake only has 4 big and 4 little cores, and the little cores aren't on the same ring bus nor L3 cache so the OS is going to try to keep related threads on only one type of core at a time, so the performance loss will probably be a little bigger for Lunar Lake than for Meteor Lake. But Lunar Lake's little cores will be a lot faster than Meteor Lake's. Intel said that multithreading improves performance by 20% and increases power consumption by 10%. Lunar Lake is going into low-power devices, where most users will spend 90% of their time running light workloads and will be wanting long battery life and quiet fans. Which is better, 10% less power consumption 90% of the time, or 20% more performance 10% of the time?