After further testing, it appears that the "Save EXIF data" and "Save XMP data" options are very expensive at these resolutions/file sizes. Disabling them nets a few dozen KiB. Additionally, setting "Smoothing" to full makes the image smaller at the expense of blurriness.
"Save for web" is probably a shortcut to remove those extra data. I wonder if Photoshop is also adding additional smoothing, beyond GIMP's maximum? That would explain why the PS image's background is smoother, but the inner details (like specular highlights) are not as distinct.
The EXIF/XMP data is highly insightful, I didn't even think about how much space those would take up. I updated the original blog post with the information you provided here, and cited you for it. Hope you don't mind.
I mentioned in comments on your original article: I wasn't able to appreciably beat the BMW or portrait images.
Metadata would help explain this, since as a percentage of file size, it'd be a lot more detrimental on the first image at 45K than the BMW at 575K.
But sure seems there's something else going on with the first image's circular gradient; PS seems to be dithering its blocks in a moire pattern while GIMP is showing strong banding even on files w/o metadata.
Updated version: < http://imgur.com/8aEPJ.jpg >
"Save for web" is probably a shortcut to remove those extra data. I wonder if Photoshop is also adding additional smoothing, beyond GIMP's maximum? That would explain why the PS image's background is smoother, but the inner details (like specular highlights) are not as distinct.