D-Wave Previews Quantum Computing Platform With Over 5,000 Qubits (venturebeat.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

D-Wave Previews Quantum Computing Platform With Over 5,000 Qubits (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday February 27, 2019 @04:50AM from the pushing-the-limits dept.

An anonymous reader writes: D-Wave Systems, one of the handful firms that is building a quantum computer, today unveiled the roadmap for its 5,000-qubit quantum computer. Components of D-Wave's next-generation quantum computing platform will come to market between now and mid-2020 via ongoing quantum processing unit (QPU) and cloud-delivered software updates. The complete system will be available through cloud access and for on-premise installation in mid-2020.

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Expand all othello games then by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 04:53 · Score: 0

Show us how long it will take to play all possible othello games then?
64 space board with declining number of open spaces after each move.
How long will it take to play all games?
How long will it to find all primes between 10^500 and 10^510 ?
1. Re:Expand all othello games then by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  These are the questions that keep me up at night. If I could just find the answer to these questions that are specifically phrased for quantum computing, I might be able to actually solve some sort of real world problem.
2. Re:Expand all othello games then by jouassou · 2019-02-27 05:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As far as I know, D-Wave doesn't make any universal quantum computers, but only quantum annealers. That means that they can solve some optimization problems on their machine, but they can't actually run e.g. Shor's integer factorization algorithm. As far as I'm aware, the current record for universal quantum computers is Google's Bristlecone, which has 72 qubits with a single-qubit error rate of ~0.1%. For comparison, most quantum error correction require an error rate of below 0.001% or so, and running Shor's algorithm to break 2048-bit RSA encryption might require up to 10,000 qubits. It'll probably be a while until they'll find those primes for you.
3. Re:Expand all othello games then by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Like in many domains, size is not all ! :)
4. Re: Expand all othello games then by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  But can they or did they prove that their machine is any faster at those problems than a standard server cluster? Or even a single multi processor system?
5. Re:Expand all othello games then by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  It cannot play even a much simplified version. This is not a general computer and not really a quantum computer either.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Cryptic "quantum" horseshit by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 04:57 · Score: 0

Each "quantum" read should begin by explaining what they mean by qbit.
This is a necessary step to educate people. Otherwise, these "quantum" articles are a useless horseshit.
1. Re:Cryptic "quantum" horseshit by jellomizer · 2019-02-27 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  But observing its actions will change its results.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Cryptic "quantum" horseshit by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Does this mean 4096-bit encryption schemes can be considered broken? Or are these "fake qubits"?
One Beelion dollars. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 04:58 · Score: 0

For %55 accuracy and 15% uptime.
Misread the title... by Crash+Dummy+Redux · 2019-02-27 05:05 · Score: 0

I didn't think anyone has seen 5,000 Q*Bert in one place.
1. Re:Misread the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  nice fresh reference to a 35 year old video game, grampareimer
  you look like you ate about 4800 of them and store 200 of them in your chins for a snack
2. Re:Misread the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Qbert came out in 1982. That's 37 years ago. Learn math, young grasshopper.
3. Re:Misread the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  i'll bet q*bert's nose has seen more sex than your q*bert, chris
4. Re:Misread the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Since I'm a D-WAVE stakeholder I took care to read all the comments in this article.
  I knew this one had to be a creimer. He has no idea what the fuck we're talking about but in a thread with 15 posts he wagered he'd try his luck karma whoring by throwing a crusty homophonic joke into the ring.
5. Re:Misread the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  creimer ain't gay man
6. Re:Misread the title... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Misread the title...
  So in short, you did yet another double-take, you spamming fat dummy flea trolltard?
Do these machines actually do anything useful? by sheramil · 2019-02-27 05:11 · Score: 1

the article wasn't very clear on this.
1. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by jythie · 2019-02-27 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They generate hype and sweet sweet VC dollars?
  
  Unless things have improved, their systems are still slower and more expensive than solving the same problem on general digital computers, and probably still slower than using analog computers.
2. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Not at the moment. No quantum computer of any kind is demonstrably faster than a classical computer. I strongly suspect that quantum computers are based on a false premise and can never work as advertised, but since it is so difficult to disprove, people get to sell snake oil in the meantime.
3. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  the article wasn't very clear on this.
  Yes, they are quantum annealers that are capable of doing discreet optimization problems.
  Protein folding, travelling salesman, quantum chemistry modeling, and artificial neural networks can all benefit from them.
  They will not run Shor's algorithm and crack encryption but the class of problems they can tackle is still has very real world applications.
4. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by garcia · 2019-02-27 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's been tested to work thousands of times better than traditional CPUs at simulated annealing operations; however, research leveraging DWave offerings have been slow to come out. You can reach an article where researchers used DWave technology to conduct their experiments. In addition, there are numerous published papers leveraging DWave tech including application in ML and optimization tasks (traffic).
  But, healthy skepticism should setup a box around our confidence in any published research until it's verified--preferably on non-DWave systems, something which is pretty damn difficult today.
5. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by Kelly+Boothby · 2019-02-27 07:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They will not run Shor's algorithm and crack encryption but the class of problems they can tackle is still has very real world applications.
  In fact, the factoring problem has a particularly nice algorithm in the adiabatic regime. It's just a multiplication circuit, where you clamp the outputs and "run it backwards" to deduce the inputs. It's not Shor's algorithm, but D-Wave is way ahead of the (gate-model quantum) competition in terms of factoring.
6. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Do these machines actually do anything useful?
  Just quantum annealing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing
  Useful to the science guys that spend their days mathing such problems out I would assume.
  On one hand, sure it's a pretty specific specialty in its own right.
  On the other hand, we have other very specific hardware for specialty math for sale right now, and are both quite popular products as well as arguably an even sillier result to spend time and money on - the 3d video card :P
  It's just the segment of the population that finds 3d model rendered games fun is a tiny bit larger than that which find combinatorial optimization functions fun.
7. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but for a (currently) narrow class of problems.
  Simulated Annealing runs on quantum computers orders of magnitude faster than on classical ones.
  It's an important result, but so far is the only one I've heard proven to run faster than it can be run on classical computers.
  If they ever get factorization under their thumb, hold onto your hat!
8. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  It separates rich gullible people from their money. No other useful application.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
9. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  They accepted money from the CIA's front company In-Q-Tel. The guys that run In-Q-Tel are not the type of guys you would want to try to screw over.
10. Re:Do these machines actually do anything useful? by jythie · 2019-02-27 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah.. that isn't saying as much as you might think. The CIA, like DARPA, provides seed money to all sorts of unlikely or sketchy projects, only with even less oversight and more 'depends who you know' corruption. CIA money going to them only really means that they have friends in common via the old revolving door.
As if a thousand qubits cried out by goombah99 · 2019-02-27 05:12 · Score: 1

and were annealed. It's an annealer. not exactly a quantum computer. But real QM computers have noise problems and waste almost all their bits on error correction methods. I wonder if there is any limit in which annealing and error correction strike some sort of equivalance or are two limit cases of something? I don't understand it well enough but I'm always trying to get more insight into the limits on the D-wave.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:As if a thousand qubits cried out by jking_ca · 2019-02-27 06:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  D-Wave processors are quantum annealers, which is a type of quantum computer. You can think of it as having a reduced instruction set relative to gate-model quantum computers. Quantum annealers _can_ be universal, but D-Wave's aren't yet. They also have noise issues but are far more robust to noise than gate-model quantum computers. Right now D-Wave processors provide a heuristic algorithm (quantum annealing) for an NP-hard optimization (Ising minimization, equivalently, quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO)). Quantum annealing does, in theory, scale better than classical alternatives like simulated annealing. There has been some evidence of this (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07452) and I'm sure more will be coming.
2. Re:As if a thousand qubits cried out by iggymanz · 2019-02-27 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  haha, no annealers are not a true quantum computer at all, cannot do what a UQC can do, and D-Wave repeatedly fails to prove any speedup or capability over normal digital computers with their annealers.
  Just a pile of hype, a distraction from universal quantum computing development.
Simulator... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:13 · Score: 0

D-Wave Systems, one of the handful [of] firms that is building a high performance quantum computer simulator....
Just because you can make algorithms faster in direct silicon doesn't change that you are just making a simulator.
So it's like your boss? by goombah99 · 2019-02-27 05:15 · Score: 1

Dilbert needs to explore the quantum boss: I'm observing you, and results don't seem to be improving.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:So it's like your boss? by ClickOnThis · 2019-02-27 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Did you say Dilbert?
  [See the first two strips on the linked page.]
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Numbers seem strange... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-27 05:23 · Score: 1

The article's numbers are weird. It talks about going from 6 qbits to 15 qbits, and then jumping to 2000 qbits and an expected 5000 qbits. Did I miss a major advance? I thought each qbit grew the difficulty of creation by an order of magnitude, and 15-20 was considered the upper limit for "cost is no object" with current tech.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
1. Re:Numbers seem strange... by Mordaximus · 2019-02-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  If I'm not completely off, I believe there are 5000 qubits, and each qubit can be connected to 15 other qubits.
  Disclaimer, I'm not a rocket doctor.
2. Re:Numbers seem strange... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There are two types of machines called quantum computers. The ones with 6-15 qbits are using special "entangled" logic gates that can in theory solve any problem, but getting a usable circuit is very difficult. D-wave is a quantum annealer, meaning that it is meant to solve a particular kind of optimization problem. It's kind of like putting a bunch of odd shaped items into a box and shaking the box. The random movement will over time cause the items to pack more tightly into the box. Only in this case, the "shaking" is quantum fluctuations.
3. Re:Numbers seem strange... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Noise. Also, these are not those entangled and theoretically perfect quantum gates of a general purpose quantum computer from the year 2040-2100.
4. Re:Numbers seem strange... by jking_ca · 2019-02-27 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  The number of qubits is increasing from 2000 to 5000. The connectivity is also increasing from 6 couplings per qubit to 15 couplings per qubit. The connectivity is important because it allows more complex problems to be solved. For example, more qubits means you can solve problems that have more variables. But you can't solve any interesting problems unless the variables interact with each other. More connectivity means you can solve problems with more interactions between the variables.
5. Re:Numbers seem strange... by ceoyoyo · 2019-02-27 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  DWave's quantum computers aren't like the general purpose ones people usually talk about because all the qubits aren't connected to all the other ones. It's more like a bunch of little quantum processing units all networked together.
  That limits the type of problems it can solve, but it does make it a lot easier to scale up.
6. Re:Numbers seem strange... by Kelly+Boothby · 2019-02-27 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a quantum architect, not a rocket doctor, but you've got this. ;)
7. Re:Numbers seem strange... by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  That limits the type of problems it can solve, but it does make it a lot easier to scale up.
  It also makes it a whole lot slower than the best classical algorithms for the same problems and a whole lot more expensive. This device has no applications where it would make sense to use it.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
8. Re:Numbers seem strange... by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The 5000 qbits are not entangled or rather only entangled in very small groups. This makes the whole thing a demented stunt.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
9. Re:Numbers seem strange... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-27 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  At 15 couplings per qbit, does that mean there's a giant interconnected network in the 5000 qbit computer, or that there are 333 parallel 15 qbit computers?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
10. Re: Numbers seem strange... by ceoyoyo · 2019-02-27 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Thatâ(TM)s true of all existing quantum computers. The DWave machine is special purpose, but a sufficiently scaled up version can be faster at some things than a conventional computer.
11. Re: Numbers seem strange... by gweihir · 2019-02-27 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the way it works, it can actually not scale up. It can do the same-size problem in parallel more time, but a classical computer can do the same. So no advantage at all, not even in the future. The only possible advantage would be cost, but as the D-Wave is much more complicated and has much lower deployment numbers than classical computers, it would probably take several decades of intense and expensive optimization to get its cost for the same performance down past the classical solution, if it can be done at all. And then it would take additional decades for this to amortize.
  Now, if the computing problem solved were a major part of the world-wide overall computing load, this could make sense. But it is not.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
12. Re: Numbers seem strange... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Shhh... You are not supposed to talk about future events
13. Re: Numbers seem strange... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-28 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, the concept of time disappeared from my mind in this quantified discussion.
I know it's not really a quantum-computer... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:26 · Score: 0

But can this thing solve any problem anyone cares about faster than a conventional computer? Most of the explanations I've heard always focus on how this isn't a real quantum computer, but don't really tell anyone what it can actually do, and what it's useful for.
1. Re:I know it's not really a quantum-computer... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  It can do optimisation problems, An example they gave is calculating the best route a radioactive beam should take through the body to reduce as much overlap and miss important organs. Of course the tumour is always in the path the beam takes, it is like temporal focus.
2. Re:I know it's not really a quantum-computer... by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  No. The only case where this thing is faster than a classical computer is when the classical computer emulates the d-wave. This of course makes zero sense. The best classical algorithms for the same thing the d-wave can do are much, much faster on much, much cheaper hardware. The whole thing is driven by fantasy and some people with no clue and too much money. It device has no practical application value.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
When this is turned on... by rnturn · 2019-02-27 05:27 · Score: 5, Funny

... the stars will all start going out.

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
1. Re:When this is turned on... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  ...why?
2. Re:When this is turned on... by ClickOnThis · 2019-02-27 08:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ... the stars will all start going out.
  ...why?
  This is why.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
5000 qubits is 5000 times of more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:49 · Score: 0

Smoke!
qubits by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 05:59 · Score: 0

I...wait...5000? Is...is that a lot?
1. Re:qubits by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  If they were entangled, yes. But they are not. As such, this is basically a very expensive paperweight.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yeah But... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:31 · Score: 0

Do any of these things run good enough to use the "imagine a beowulf cluster of these!" on it yet?
"Cloud Only" you say? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:33 · Score: 0

Wanna bet this is another Theranos type outfit where all the computing is done with traditional processors behind a phony abstraction layer over AWS? Looking forward to laughing at goofy VCs left holding the bag on this one...
The problems that D-Wave solves by OneHundredAndTen · 2019-02-27 06:35 · Score: 2

What are the problems that D-Wave has so far managed to solve, that a conventional computer cannot solve just as efficiently and at a fraction of the cost?
1. Re:The problems that D-Wave solves by iggymanz · 2019-02-27 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  D-Wave doesn't even make quantum computers, they make quantum annealers. So there is no speedup of course.
2. Re:The problems that D-Wave solves by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-11 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  The problem:
  If you don't do it first. Someone else will, and they will break all your encryption, and potentially more.
  Not everything is meant to solve a problem. Not every problem is known until afterwards.
Based on a false premise by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 06:43 · Score: 0

As is the Infinite Improbability Drive from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Or, if these do work, the only thing it will output is the number 42.
Obligatory - 640 qubits by nuckfuts · 2019-02-27 07:30 · Score: 0

ought to be enough for anybody.
1. Re: Obligatory - 640 qubits by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-28 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Windows Q - only for modern computers
creimer!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 07:31 · Score: 0

Good work creimer way to inject low value pop-culture banter into interesting discussion.
The Most Interesting thing about DWAVE is the Woo. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 09:29 · Score: 0

Have you ever visited YouTube or the Redditsub /r/MandelaEffect? - On these platforms, They consider Dwave's offering so capable that it is distorting the very fabric of spacetime, Won't you know!
I do not know if these people are trolling, but at a glance it would appear that they are actually in favor of DWAVE being some demonic gateway to another dimension. This is about as hilarious and low as it gets - What do you even call these people? They are worse than Flat Earthers. Is there a word for them?
Re:The Most Interesting thing about DWAVE is the W by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 09:35 · Score: 0

Ancient Alien Theorists?
on-premises, not on-premise by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 10:00 · Score: 0

on-premises, not on-premise.
https://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/So-apparently-we-lost-the-grammar-war-and-on-premises-is-just-called-on-premise-now
They do not have a QC by gweihir · 2019-02-27 10:22 · Score: 1

They have a "Quantum Annealer" and it happens to be much slower than the best algorithms for classical computers. All that keeps them alive is clueless morons with too much money and a desperate desire to be at the forefron of things.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:The Most Interesting thing about DWAVE is the W by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 11:43 · Score: 0

Ancient Alien Theorists?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.
Great Open-Source-ness ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-27 22:52 · Score: 0

It's great to see that DWave is doing the right things with Open-sourcing their tools - and even investing in LibreOffice https://www.collaboraoffice.co...