5 ms·

These results seem a bit misleading - they're comparing their multi-million dollar system to a classical optimizer running single-threaded on a 3-year old proce

These results seem a bit misleading - they're comparing their multi-million dollar system to a classical optimizer running single-threaded on a 3-year old processor (Intel Xeon E5-2670), and then saying 'look how much faster we are than a classical optimizer!' How does this compare to a giant cluster of new Xeons with faster interconnects?

nwah1 11y ago
Not to mention the continual energy requirements of cooling a system to near absolute zero, in addition to the fixed cost of the system. Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense.
- agsamek 11y ago
  > Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense I don't think so. I haven't heard of any and would like to learn about even one that was validated by any of: algorithms experts or real life.
  - nwah1 11y ago
    My understanding is that quantum computers are very good at simulating quantum physics. Which, granted, probably doesn't have many commercial applications.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      Designing better transistors, discovering new drugs...
    - gjm11 11y ago
      "Normal" quantum computers are good at simulating quantum physics, or would be if we could build big enough ones. D-Wave's adiabatic allegedly-quantum computer is not, so far as anyone knows. The only thing (so far as I am aware) that anyone knows how to do with D-Wave's machine is to use it to find approximate solutions to certain optimization problems. The last I heard, it did so slower than a standard-issue laptop running (non-quantum!) software designed to find approximate solutions to the same optimization problem that D-Wave's underlying hardware models. That was before the release of the latest D-Wave machine. I don't think it was ever clear whether D-Wave's device scales better than a conventional computer when trying to solve larger problems. Perhaps it does, in which case their new $10M machine may outperform commodity laptops. [EDITED to add: see http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-w... and the other pages linked therefrom for some comparisons between D-Wave's reported performance and that of some heuristic optimization software running on a commodity laptop. Disclosure: the author is a friend of mine.]
  - gh02t 11y ago
    If we're talking about the D-Wave in particular then no, I don't think there's anybody who's going to prefer them for real work as they're not competitive. I'm pretty sure most people are buying them as experimental platforms to play with an emerging technology and nobody expects them to actually be practical. If we're talking about quantum computers in general, then there's several places where a hypothetical ideal quantum computer with competitive performance would have an advantage. The typical example is in cryptography, where Shor's integer factorization algorithm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm ) would likely be fast enough to break modern public key cryptography in reasonable (i.e., polynomial) time.
- mechagodzilla 11y ago
  For it to make sense to buy one, it would have to actually be a better all-around solution to a problem. Say this machine costs $10 million (the same price of one of their earlier machines), and is the size and power consumption of many racks of equipment. Do you spend $10 million on this, or $10 million on 4 racks of xeon servers with GPUs? Their machine is probably hilariously worse than the commodity solution for nearly all real-world problems.
tachyonbeam 11y ago
AFAIK this kind of problem is easily parallelized, and it should be possible to accelerate it using GPGPU... So, they may not be able to beat a well-tuned implementation on a desktop workstation with a few GPUs costing less than 10K.
BrainInAJar 11y ago
The results are not just a bit misleading, they're incredibly misleading and a downright lie. See eg: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 ""CPLEX is a general-purpose, off-the-shelf exact optimization package. Of course an exact solver can’t compete against quantum annealing—or for that matter, against classical annealing or other classical heuristics! """ DWave is snake oil in the worst possible way.
- DrizztVD 11y ago
  This is BS. It's really easy to shoot down a new technology in its second iteration by comparing it with the gazillionth iteration of super-duper-optimised older technology. So what if CPLEX is this and this, it's still running on a platform that has had multiple Billions of dollars poured into it to optimize and improve it. What do you think will a QC be capable of when it has had a similar investment in R&D - I beg to ask of you?? The truth is, classical computers are reaching their zenith. Those who stubbornly denounce new technologies based on such a truly horrific comparison such as what we have here are doomed to be clutching their 8 core beast of yesteryear, sulking as the part of the world that is willing to adapt and change move past them at a rapid pace. I can promise you there were many similar arguments such as this when radio technology, TV broadcasting, computer technology, and LCDs first came about. Sure, people can argue against a new technology based on the underlying fundamental principles of the technology, but saying a new technology is stupid because it's not as good (yet!) as the current technology is the worst argument in human history. Using your argument I can say that Albert Einstein is definitely the most stupid person that ever lived - because look, as a 3-year-old he was useless. The argument forgets that a three year old Einstein is a much different person than a 23-year-old Einstein. A 23-year-old quantum computer will be a much different thing than a three-year-old quantum computer!
  - BrainInAJar 11y ago
    Read the article. Aaronson is in fact arguing against a new technology based on the fundamental principles of the technology. DWave is not a quantum computer, they aren't even a quantum annealing computer. They (probably, but not certainly) exploit a very particular effect to optimize a very particular problem. It cannot run Shor's or Grover's, and it never will be able to.

nwah1 11y ago

Not to mention the continual energy requirements of cooling a system to near absolute zero, in addition to the fixed cost of the system. Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense.

agsamek 11y ago
> Although there are almost certainly some specialized niches where it would make sense I don't think so. I haven't heard of any and would like to learn about even one that was validated by any of: algorithms experts or real life.
- nwah1 11y ago
  My understanding is that quantum computers are very good at simulating quantum physics. Which, granted, probably doesn't have many commercial applications.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    Designing better transistors, discovering new drugs...
  - gjm11 11y ago
    "Normal" quantum computers are good at simulating quantum physics, or would be if we could build big enough ones. D-Wave's adiabatic allegedly-quantum computer is not, so far as anyone knows. The only thing (so far as I am aware) that anyone knows how to do with D-Wave's machine is to use it to find approximate solutions to certain optimization problems. The last I heard, it did so slower than a standard-issue laptop running (non-quantum!) software designed to find approximate solutions to the same optimization problem that D-Wave's underlying hardware models. That was before the release of the latest D-Wave machine. I don't think it was ever clear whether D-Wave's device scales better than a conventional computer when trying to solve larger problems. Perhaps it does, in which case their new $10M machine may outperform commodity laptops. [EDITED to add: see http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-with-classical-computers/ http://www.archduke.org/stuff/d-wave-comment-on-comparison-w... and the other pages linked therefrom for some comparisons between D-Wave's reported performance and that of some heuristic optimization software running on a commodity laptop. Disclosure: the author is a friend of mine.]
- gh02t 11y ago
  If we're talking about the D-Wave in particular then no, I don't think there's anybody who's going to prefer them for real work as they're not competitive. I'm pretty sure most people are buying them as experimental platforms to play with an emerging technology and nobody expects them to actually be practical. If we're talking about quantum computers in general, then there's several places where a hypothetical ideal quantum computer with competitive performance would have an advantage. The typical example is in cryptography, where Shor's integer factorization algorithm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm ) would likely be fast enough to break modern public key cryptography in reasonable (i.e., polynomial) time.
mechagodzilla 11y ago
For it to make sense to buy one, it would have to actually be a better all-around solution to a problem. Say this machine costs $10 million (the same price of one of their earlier machines), and is the size and power consumption of many racks of equipment. Do you spend $10 million on this, or $10 million on 4 racks of xeon servers with GPUs? Their machine is probably hilariously worse than the commodity solution for nearly all real-world problems.

tachyonbeam 11y ago

AFAIK this kind of problem is easily parallelized, and it should be possible to accelerate it using GPGPU... So, they may not be able to beat a well-tuned implementation on a desktop workstation with a few GPUs costing less than 10K.

BrainInAJar 11y ago

The results are not just a bit misleading, they're incredibly misleading and a downright lie. See eg: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 ""CPLEX is a general-purpose, off-the-shelf exact optimization package. Of course an exact solver can’t compete against quantum annealing—or for that matter, against classical annealing or other classical heuristics! """ DWave is snake oil in the worst possible way.

DrizztVD 11y ago
This is BS. It's really easy to shoot down a new technology in its second iteration by comparing it with the gazillionth iteration of super-duper-optimised older technology. So what if CPLEX is this and this, it's still running on a platform that has had multiple Billions of dollars poured into it to optimize and improve it. What do you think will a QC be capable of when it has had a similar investment in R&D - I beg to ask of you?? The truth is, classical computers are reaching their zenith. Those who stubbornly denounce new technologies based on such a truly horrific comparison such as what we have here are doomed to be clutching their 8 core beast of yesteryear, sulking as the part of the world that is willing to adapt and change move past them at a rapid pace. I can promise you there were many similar arguments such as this when radio technology, TV broadcasting, computer technology, and LCDs first came about. Sure, people can argue against a new technology based on the underlying fundamental principles of the technology, but saying a new technology is stupid because it's not as good (yet!) as the current technology is the worst argument in human history. Using your argument I can say that Albert Einstein is definitely the most stupid person that ever lived - because look, as a 3-year-old he was useless. The argument forgets that a three year old Einstein is a much different person than a 23-year-old Einstein. A 23-year-old quantum computer will be a much different thing than a three-year-old quantum computer!
- BrainInAJar 11y ago
  Read the article. Aaronson is in fact arguing against a new technology based on the fundamental principles of the technology. DWave is not a quantum computer, they aren't even a quantum annealing computer. They (probably, but not certainly) exploit a very particular effect to optimize a very particular problem. It cannot run Shor's or Grover's, and it never will be able to.