4 ms·
> from the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 : we report the total computational effort of QMC in standard units of time per
by ivan_ah 11y ago
> from the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 : we report the total computational effort of QMC in standard units of time per single core.
That's an interesting way to compare quantum and classical computer "substrates" on the same footing: running time.
> Based on the results presented here, one cannot claim a quantum speedup [...]
as this would require that the quantum processor [to] outperform the best known
classical algorithm. This is not the case... because a variety of heuristic
classical algorithms can solve most instances of Chimera structured problems
much faster than SA, QMC, and the D-Wave 2X
So no quantum revolution yet, but potentially for larger problems and when the quantum "substrate" becomes more expressive, we'll see classical heuristics fail and quantum annealing win.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoI'll add that I could cram a bunch of ASIC's with accelerators for annealing problems in a machine the size of D-Wave. You'd see magnitude-higher speedup without anything quantum at all. I'm not sure if they looked inside of one to see exactly what's running in it but I'd rule out classical acceleration methods first.
- DannyBee 11y agoThe paper mentioned they talked with folks doing special purpose FPGA's, and that those teams seem to disagree with your assessment ;-) (at least, that's my read, maybe i misunderstood)
- nickpsecurity 11y agoThe one thing that appears to contradict my claim is a 10^8 speedup. That's a ridiculously huge speed-up that even custom hardware won't achieve. I'm not sure if it's an error or not, though. If it was right, then they either have a groundbreaking algorithm with acceleration or a quantum annealing machine.
- eveningcoffee 11y agoThey say: Based on the results presented here, one cannot claim a quantum speedup for D-Wave 2X, as this would require that the quantum processor in question outperforms the best known classical algorithm. This is not the case for the weak-strong cluster networks. This is because a va- riety of heuristic classical algorithms can solve most in- stances of Chimera structured problems much faster than SA, QMC, and the D-Wave 2X. But that in my opinion does not mean that it is not a quantum annealing computer, just that it does not bring the speed-up we are looking for.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoThat stood out for me too. It might mean something or might not. D-Wave just acts dodgier than most companies so Im a bit more skeptical.
- eveningcoffee 11y agoI base my speculation on this comparison: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36412/what-is-the-difference-in-speed-between-a-gpu-and-an-asic-per-dollar-of-cost http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36412/what-is-the... between GPU and ASIC bitcoin mining and on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparis... for GPU and CPU comparison. From this the difference between between GPU and ASIC solution is about 10^4. Google tested against Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 single core, so it would be roughly 10^3 slower than GPU. So one could say that ASIC solution for bitcoin mining is about 10^7 times faster than single core CPU solution. So in this sense parents claim checks out. Now I do not know if it is possible to generalize these finding to the problem in question.
- eveningcoffee 11y agoIt looks like the actual difference is 10^6.