Well, I'd have said so too, but perhaps it's how they've defined the speed. GPUs are generally slower than CPUs when it comes to clock speeds, it's just that they're much faster when hundreds of them are run in parallel, it being the usual situation.

You've raised a good point through, tables/charts of this type should be footnoted with definitions/conditions etc., and of necessity should only be considered high-level overviews—a bit like the Periodic Table which contains only key information about the elements.

That said, I'd like to see a more precise version of this table. There are good examples to follow, one often comes across really good lab posters like this where the main chart is actually footnoted with smaller charts detailing the specifics of objects to avoid clutter and or to represent info that would otherwise have had to be projected in 3D views.

Edit: incidentally, I find it annoying that so many authors of scientific papers fail to define and label graph axes properly, same with equation terms. It's all very well for professionals to resort to jargon and shorthand when talking amongst themselves (I even do it myself), as they are dealing with their subjects on a daily basis but it's a different matter in publications where papers are read by a wider audience.