4 ms·

Parallelization would get you a factor 1/k (k being the number of cores) in favor of the classical algorithm at best. Exactly. The question is what would be th

Parallelization would get you a factor 1/k (k being the number of cores) in favor of the classical algorithm at best. Exactly. The question is what would be the actual real life speedup. If it is not easily parallelizable then it becomes much more interesting finding. I am not familiar with these algorithms, but name of QMC would suggest that this is an embarrassingly parallelizable problem, so my interest might be just from my ignorance. The real issue is whether if there is an exponential difference between quantum annealing and classical algorithms Yes, I know and that was not the focus of my comment. Sorry.

efangs 11y ago
If you give classical k cores, then to be fair you should give quantum k D-waves. If you are only making a scaling argument, then no need to include terms that cancel. If you want to make a comparison between currently available hardware, then the metric should be some combination of speed, power usage, space, cost, etc.
- apsec112 11y ago
  That isn't a fair equivalence. A core costs about $100, while a D-Wave machine costs about $20 million.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    For actual fairness, you'd need to consider all the research and development costs that got that core to $100.