I really did not understand  this kind of benchmark. I don't care which filesystem is faster creating 10.000 files (something I never have to do). I care about which filesystem fits better with my everyday use of my data.
Days ago I wrote a few script trying to simulate a tipical desktop session, *my* tipical desktop session. With different filesystem I've got difference of minutes. That's a benchmark that mean something to me.
Why I'm trying/looking at reiser4?
Because:
a) seeks are the real problem of hd (they kill performance);
b) journal in a fixed position creates a lot of seeks;
c) I love ext2, but my laptop crash a lot of time in a day (tests, battery and so on).

Testing reiser4 is giving to me a good feeling with wondering logs. You know... less seek, less HD stress... so more responsiveness.
Well, it's too early to express an opinion about R4 (I'm using it since last week), but the only way to test a FS is to use it for a long time.

Sorry for my bad english,
gelma