If this is what you'd meant to say I think you would have said it from the outset. Now, I see a chart for graphics card FPS and you'll go on to give me some explanation of how it can be applied to MB/s of file compression in 7-Zip or whatnot, but then you're talking about two different charts.
Please allow me to explain how the performance/price chart is useful, particularly to people who can do basic math in their heads. X product costs 10% more than Y product but only has 5% better performance, so it doesn't reach the same value score. You already know that if you're looking at a 10% increase on a $500 memory set, it's $50 that's getting you your 5% better performance from $550 spent. But if you're really smart you know that 10% better performance applies to the whole machine when memory is the bottleneck, and if it's a $2000 machine you're improving its performance by 5% for only a 2.5% increase in system cost. Suddenly that $50 looks like money well spent.
Since we can't guess what your machine costs, we're counting on the serious readers to do that math on their own. The easy chart is for casual readers, but it still shows average performance on the bottom two bars.
The next step for the hardcore reader would be to use application specific metrics. We only have four of those due to time. But those calculation are easy: 154 FPS is still 10% faster than 140 FPS, and 7:12 is still 10% faster than 8:00.