4 ms·

10^8 is a lot.

• eveningcoffee 11y ago
  If we compare single core CPU performance against heavily motivated special solution, then it is not (it does not follow that the same method can be applied in this case, but then again, a better classical algorithm on single core beats the reported quantum result according to the paper (PS. this is in the paper, not on the graph)). Here is 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 here is https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparis... 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 10^2 slower than GPU. So one could say that ASIC solution for bitcoin mining is about 10^6 times faster than single core CPU solution. Million times difference is of course not 100 million times difference, but it is still a lot and then again, alternative classical algorithms would beat current result: 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 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 (from http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206). I think that this is an important and an interesting result, but it is in my opinion not that impressive that it may appear to look.