No it doesn't. The 1000x factor refers to the photo-response of the material, not power output, not cost to produce, not durability.

All these are properties of a (prototype-)product, while this research is basic research and didn't create any prototypes. The researchers measured the photo-response by shining laser light onto a sample, they didn't build a panel and measured the power output.

Not 1000x net output since we are in what now, 10-20% efficiency with current available cell technology? That would not make sense.

From one of the comments on the article:

  Ryan Kennedy
  August 6, 2021 at 1:46 am
  Our apologies for not making this clear. The photovoltaic 
  effect was increased by 1000 times compared to previous 
  output achieved from cells made of ferroelectric crystals, 
  not from prevailing solar cells made of silicon or other 
  conventional materials.

Ok, now we just need to know how ferroelectric crystals compare to conventional solar cells to find out what this "1000x" really means...

i would guess that they are about 1000x worse than conventional silicon

Or much worse yet, otherwise the authors could have used clear language.

Yes, it would be extremely helpful if we knew how they compared to what people are able to purchase today.