> FPGAs excel in parallelizing very simple operations.

I don't think that's a good characterization. FPGA are good at what they end up being programmed for. And in the final analysis, everything a chip does is broken down to simple operation.

The FPGA selling point has always been around perf/W and efficiency with regard to a "set of task". An ASIC will always be faster for a specific task, and CPU will always be faster on average on everything. However, when considering say "compression" or "check-sum" as general class of algorithm, and FPGA with a set of predefined configuration could be better and cheaper.