Congratulations: You found an example of a really really expensive LED - which is exactly what I said.
And I've seen this LED before - it's the very first one I've ever seen that beats a CFL for efficiency, and it does it by having a CRI of 80 (the legal minimum). So the color advantage LEDs have over CFL? Not for this bulb - this bulb looks terrible, so bad that it's going to turn people off from LEDs, the same way the early bad CFLs made people think they are all bad.
How exactly are you saving anything from flexibility? Who cares if they are dimmable, the majority of the time you don't, and the tiny savings in electricity when you do hardly matter.
I turn my CFLs on and off quite often and I go years between having to replace them. And they cost 74 cents - replacing them is hardly an expensive proposition even when they fail (which they usually don't).
Check the efficiency of LEDs that cost no more than $5 (still 6x the price of a CFL, but reasonable) for around 800 lumens, if you find one that beats - or even matches - a CFL let me know. And make sure the CRI is comparable too. A low CRI CFL is also much more efficient.
Haizt's Law has nothing to do with efficiency. Also, the theoretical max for efficiency is 250 lm/w. It's going to get much much harder to improve things as we get closer.
I agree that eventually LEDs will beat other technology. It's just not there yet.