Both of you suck at car analogies.
Let's say Nissan makes an engine. V6, 3.8L. They advertize it as being 250HP, promote it mainly by putting it in racecars and winning races, and a whole lot of other technical specs get handed out to reviewers to gush over, but nobody really reads them except nerds.
They then make a variant engine. Same V6, but they cut the stroke down so it's only 3.0L. They advertize it as being 200HP, promote it with some more racecars that don't win the overall race but are best in their class, and again they hand out a small book worth of technical specs, this one with a minor error in the air flow rates on page 394. Somebody forgot to edit the numbers from the 3.8L engine, so even though the actual airflow is more than enough for the smaller engine, the numbers originally given look bigger.
Except memory for whatever reason is what most laymen measure graphicscard performance on. So it i s not an obscure little number. This is claiming the engine is 3.8L and forgetting to say that it a 3.8L that has been cut to only use 3.0L and therefore perform as a 3.0L.