Yes and no.
ENIAC exceeded the processing power of a human brain. Only for solving systems of equations, a task which humans find very difficult, and for which computers are naturally suited. But we would never have built it if this weren't the case.
Chess fell to AI decades before Go did, because computers find Go more difficult, due to the much greater branching factor. Humans are more naturally suited to Go, we can "cheat" by training our built-in shape and pattern recognition subsystems.
It's true that driving a car recruits many adaptive subsystems of a human brain. It's further along the spectrum of 'easy for humans, hard for computers'. But what I want to illustrate is that the 'processing power of a human brain' isn't very well-defined, and isn't the relevant factor for why self-driving has proven remarkably difficult.
It's not clear to me that full self-driving, at the level where there's no steering wheel in the car, can be achieved without general AI. I don't even think it's a useful goal, since the really difficult tasks are things like "park your car in this particular place in a field when arriving at a wedding", rather than situations a human would have to suddenly take over for.
But I have to employ my full concentration to add two five-digit numbers in my head, and while I once knew the trick for multiplication, today I'm quite incapable. Yet there's nothing more trivial for a computer.