When we say 1MHz, it means the CPU goes through 1 000 000 clock cycles per second. A "clock cycle" does not refer to a lock that a layman might bring to mind, but I'm not sure of how best to describe (it is best if you understand hardware or assembly).
I'll try this:
In assembly, there is an instruction "ld hl,**" where ** is a 2-byte immediate value. In hexadecimal this is 21**** and takes 10 clock cycles to execute (it basically does ****→HL) However, "ld h,l" which is 65 in hexadecimal takes only 4 clock cycles (it is basically L→H, but please don't confuse this as meaning the BASIC variables). So what you can do, for example, is find the timings of certain routines, like this:
DE_Times_A:
;Inputs:
; DE and A are factors
;Outputs:
; A is not changed
; B is 0
; C is not changed
; DE is not changed
; HL is the product
;Time:
; 342+6x
;
ld b,8 ;7 7
ld hl,0 ;10 10
add hl,hl ;11*8 88
rlca ;4*8 32
jr nc,$+3 ;(12|18)*8 96+6x
add hl,de ;-- --
djnz $-5 ;13*7+8 99
ret ;10 10
I like hyperoptimising my code, so I keep track of cycles and t-states for some routines. This routine averages 366 clock cycles. If the calc is running at 6MHz, that means it can execute six million clock cycles per second, so that routine could execute 6000000/366 times per second.
The z80 processor is pretty neat, but there are more advanced processors such as the eZ80 which flat-out shames the 30 years outdated processor that TI uses. For example, on the z80, instructions have different clock cycle timings (t-states). On the eZ80, they are all 1-cycle, so that multiplication routine would take (I believe) 39 t-states. On top of that, it runs at 25MHz and I think it can be clocked up to 50MHz, so it would run about 60 times faster than the z80 in most circumstances. Since the eZ80 can be used in place of the z80 (in other words it has a backwards compatibility mode that has the same instructions as the old z80), you could theoretically replace the z80 in the calcs, if it wasn't for a few issues:
1) TI actually manufactures a slightly altered processor, so it could break some routines.
2) TI uses very slow LCDs, so graphics wouldn't get much better, except that you could do a ton of math while waiting to write the next byte to the LCD to make more advanced graphics (500 t-states of one cycle instructions that you need to wait for to write each of the 768 bytes to the LCD? You could make some amazing 3D rendering.)
3) Your batteries would run out faster.
4) It has 24-bit addressing instead of 16-bit. You would be limited to the 64KB though, because of how TI handles their memory banks. You would forever know that you could be using 16MB of RAM instead of 24KB.