←back to thread

429 points AbhishekParmar | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
1. kantbtrue ◴[] No.45671020[source]
“13,000× faster” sounds huge, but I wonder what it’s being compared to. Quantum speedups are always tricky to measure
replies(1): >>45671059 #
2. jonathanstrange ◴[] No.45671059[source]
The article states: “...13,000 times faster on Willow than the best classical algorithm on one of the world’s fastest supercomputers...”

I agree it's not very precise without knowing which of the world's fastest supercomputers they're talking about, but there was no need to leave out this tidbit.

replies(2): >>45671153 #>>45674702 #
3. jasonthorsness ◴[] No.45671153[source]
The paper talks only about the Frontier supercomputer which is #2 on Top500. But I think it was an analysis rather than them actually running it.
replies(1): >>45671211 #
4. jonathanstrange ◴[] No.45671211{3}[source]
I was being sarcastic because 13,000 times faster is 4 orders of magnitude faster so it doesn't matter to which supercomputer it is compared.
5. nicce ◴[] No.45674702[source]
I don’t understand how these papers get accepted
replies(2): >>45675516 #>>45679034 #
6. cannonpalms ◴[] No.45675516{3}[source]
The field is nascent. The bar is not static.
7. ◴[] No.45679034{3}[source]