Not so fast... To get a human the result of those 25 exaflops, we have to interact with and observe the results. In a pretty much classical newtonian mechanics macro -world in which as far as we can tell information transfer is accomplished with discrete digital electrical or optical signals.
Well, if we take a step up out of CS theory, or maybe just go back to the turing machine, we observe that those electrical and optical signals take energy in the transmitter.. watts = current x voltage, and dissapate some of that heat in the transmission media, and in the receiver. So really, the natural benchmark of our exaflop quantum FPU is not in flops, but in bits/second. But if we are talking about an exaflop in 1 cubic millimeter, we best be go find some mechanical engineers who know practical stuff about thermodynamics and heat transfer, because the surface of this cubic millimeter exaflop is going to be lit up like a quasar getting the data in and out. But I don't need to go all sci-fi on you to prove a point.. The latest processors from AMD and Intel modulate the CPU clock to stay within the thermal envelope of the silicon package. Someone's going to bring up GPUs, but we have many other practical problems getting data in and out of GPUs. And the fast ones run really hot. I will bet you that the computing *system* that has the best Bits/Joule is the one that will have the highest Bits/second (measured at the FPU), and in in turn, the highest machoFLOPS.
So let's just forget the machoFLOPS, and evaluate the system on Bits per Joule for effiency, and bits per second for peak capability... Hrrm.. What benchmark should we use? Might I offer a suggestion? Or write a few other ones. Or just report FLOPS in terms of bits/joule. Or exaflop/megawatt-hour or something.