I think it's just not a good idea to talk about performance of two technologies just based on the fact that one is compiled and the other one is interpreted. As stated in other answers, it may depend on the area of application (some languages may be optimised to do some operations very quickly and do other things more slowly) as well as on experience of people that are about to use that technology.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect that you will get a performance boost if you take some excellent interpreted language coders and give them some technology that they are unfamiliar with - maybe in theory the latter MAY result in better performance, but in reality, without necessary skills and experience, you won't use all the optimization opportunities.

From one of the well-known Silicon Valley company employees I've also heard that they prefer the language that is simpler to use as it is more costly and troublesome to pay some skilled developers to maintain a complicated, but highly optimized code than just to buy more rigs in order to deal with the less efficient implementation, so that also should be considered while choosing the technology.