Agreed. Pretty much everything about this test screams that it was either done in ignorance or that it was constructed specifically to get the desired results.
From a hardware standpoint they are essentially comparing a high performance 2013 system to a very unbalanced 2014 system. The 2013 system is something of a worst case scenario: the CPU (i7-4820K) and GPU (GTX 780) are lower tier binned products that typically have lower power efficiency than their more expensive siblings (e.g. 4960X and GTX 780 Ti) since they came out of the factor with defective units and/or worse power characteristics than a prime chip. Even the RAM is a poor choice, being a 1.65v kit rather than 1.5v as is standard for DDR3. To top it off they used a 550W PSU, which for a system with that kind of power consumption is undersized. This causes it to run closer to its limits, and PSU efficiency drops off after 80% or so.
Meanwhile the 2014 system is an odd hodge-podge of parts that seems to be picked precisely to minimize power consumption under very limited circumstances. That system combines a high-performance GTX 970 (a well-regarded card for efficiency) with a low-end Pentium G3258, and then goes with an even larger 760W PSU.
The problem with this whole test is that they're clearly using a extremely GPU limited test metric, which is why performance doesn't drop despite the significant downgrade in CPUs. A GTX 970 is going to be CPU-limited in most games when paired with that processor, which is why "balance" is a concern when building such a system.
But perhaps the most baffling part is the monitor choice. They ended up using an old (circa 2008) Apple HD Cinema Display for the 2013 system, which is a 23" CCFL-backlit IPS display. Meanwhile the 2014 system switches that out for a 24" LED-backlit TN display. Even ignoring the age difference for a moment (backlighting tech makes a difference here), you generally don't see users swap between IPS and TN. Either someone favors IPS for viewing angles, color space, and color stability (while eating the power costs intrinsic to making that happen), or they favor TN for the fast response times. They're not equivalent displays beyond the fact that they're both displays.
Overall I really can't shake the feeling that this was rigged from the start for promotional purposes. The only way these tests and configurations make sense is if you built these systems to get the desired outcome, all the while focusing exclusively on GPU performance to hide the downgrade of the other components.