Damn. I think you managed to get every single number wrong :-) First of all, FLOPS is not the same as FLOPs / cycle. Note the lowercase 's'. The former is flo

Damn. I think you managed to get every single number wrong :-) First of all, FLOPS is not the same as FLOPs / cycle. Note the lowercase 's'. The former is floating point operations per second. The latter is per cycle. To convert the latter number into FLOPS, you have to multiply by the clock speed. That gives you 10^10 FLOPS, or 10 gigaflops. Now that's per-core. You said quad-core, so it's 40 gigaflops per processor. 4000 processors, so it's 160 teraflops. Much higher than the slowest on that list, but much lower than the fastest. The other thing you got wrong is that if it were a mere 20 megaflops, it would have been a factor of a million slower :-) Tera is 10^12. Anyway, I think this whole thing is apples-to-oranges because actual supercomputers have a much more tightly inter-connected grid (I believe) than the sort of loose cluster that Hadoop typically runs on, and further, they have a different programming model (Fortran with MPI and things like that.)