How dare you criticise the author - he is a physicist and he has stooped to coming and telling us computer science types how to do it properly!
There is a deeply appropriate xkcd but I cannot be bothered to find it. Decoding the garbage in the pcworld story tell us that he is going to break Amdahl's Law by dynamically partitioning the workload between a fast single threaded processor and many slower parallel processors. I would guess that my failing to make a fair comparison they can claim that the portion running under the boosted clock somehow beats the bounds predicted by Amdahl's law. Sadly it does not as the law is worded in the proportion of the code that can be executed on the parallel architecture.
It is quite possible that much of the hyperbole was added as sales pitch, which is a little unfortunate as the dynamic partitioning and the toolchain support are far more interesting anyway.