Is an in-memory table faster to read from than a table cached in memory? Is an in-memory (aka Hekaton) table faster to read from than a non-in-memory table that's already cached in the memory of a SQL server?

I ask this because I have a case where I'm considering converting one of my tables to an in-memory table, but right now it's pretty fast to load into the memory cache, but the performance to read / operate against it after it's loaded into the cache is where it's slow.

Can I still see potential performance improvements by converting this table to an in-memory table?
What is the wait type you experience when your on-disk table is slow to read from when it's already cached?

Memory-optimized tables are optimized for writing, not reading, so it's very unlikely you'd see any performance benefit from migration to Hekaton.