I heard that an uncompressed kernel will give more performance than a compressed kernel.
Not necessarily. Here's a quick chart of boot times using OMAP4 which has a comparable core: Linux on ARM: xz kernel decompression benchmarks
Copy-pasting the important part:
| Compression | Size | Loading time | Uncompressing time | Total time |
| gzip | 3355768 | 2.213376 | 0.501500 | 2.714876 |
| lzma | 2488144 | 1.647410 | 1.399552 | 3.046962 |
| xz | 2366192 | 1.566978 | 1.299516 | 2.866494 |
| lzo | 3697840 | 2.471497 | 0.160596 | 2.632093 |
| None | 6965644 | 4.626749 | 0 | 4.626749 |
As you can see the uncompressed kernel had a worse boot time than any of the compressed kernels. This is because reading more data from storage is generally slower than uncompression that happens in memory. Even if you were booting from a fast storage device and were using a particularly slow compression algorithm, the time savings might be minimal.