That article is a joke. It uses synthetic SP and DP benchmarks in SiSoftware Sandra to insinuate that HD7970 would be more suitable than Kepler architecture in real world compute applications.
Of course on paper HD7970 has unbelievable SP and esp. DP performance but that doesn't always translate into real world advantages in professional or even consumer compute applications.
Remember how many people were speculating that GK104 was going to be underwhelming for Folding@Home because every reviewer under the sun concluded that Kepler has been "neutered" for compute?
People clump Compute performance under one umbrella but it's much more complex. One has to understand what a specific program calls for exactly:
1) OpenCL performance
2) Single Precision
3) Double precision
4) How is that software optimized for a specific architecture
5) Developer support/driver updates
It's evident that NV has a clear strategy in how it segments its products in the compute market. It works to provide solutions for professionals that help them for their specific computational needs. What's AMD's compute strategy? No one knows really. They just launched an excellent GCN compute architecture but didn't market it effectively and have shown lack of support. They aren't doing any of the work to sway professionals to consider the products as viable alternatives.
Even if on paper HD7970 is superior to Kepler, unless it translates to real world advantage for professionals, it's meaningless (and I am not talking about Bitcoin mining).
Also, economics are a factor and Kepler is leading in performance/watt.
While the next 3 benches are not compute related, I just wanted to point out why drivers/and optimizations are critical for professional applications in Quadro and Tesla markets. Quadro 5000 has inferior hardware to GTX470 but look at the performance in professional apps:
In professional and compute applications, you cannot just compare videocards based on theoretical/"on-paper" performance. And that's exactly what VR-Zone has done.