There seems to be a sense of competition in creating the fastest computer in the world, and I feel like technically you just have to continue increasing the core number to gain more flops, which is exactly what some countries are doing, so how would you really bench mark the technological level of a supercomputer
United States currently have two supercomputer on the top list with similar performance, however one has significantly less core than the other
Titan has 560000 cores 17590 Rmax Tflops with 8000 kW of power
Sequoia has 1570000 cores 17173 Rmax Tflops with 7800 kW of power
Does this mean that Titan is a much superior supercomputer than Sequoia as it only uses 1/3 of cores to reach a similar performance, and if it does, this will also imply that judging supercomputer by flops is completely meaningless?
Is there something I am missing here? Such as the increasing complexity of software as the amount of core gets larger and the synchronization of overhead to assign task to each core gets more sophisticated?
Any info would be much appreciated