Yes, I still don’t really see the use case for “personal” quantum computers…
Quantum computers are already usable “in the cloud” - this is, I think, some kind of “trial version”:
The sooner someone ports Cycles, or maybe even EEVEE to this, the better!
And this has obvious applications for game streaming too, of course…
The same was probably said of the computers we have today. Wasn’t it the head of IBM who predicted back in the 1940s that there would only ever be a need for 5 or 6 computers in the world.
Lasers were once an academic curiosity - nobody forsaw the applications lasers would ultimately go on to have. If I went back to 1917 and told Albert Einstein I would one day own a laser I could fit in my shirt pocket and would use it to entertain my cats - he’d have laughed his ass off.
how often does this have to be repeated? a quantum computer isn’t just like a normal computer but one million times faster. that’s what many people seem to think.
you can’t port cycles or eevee to it. if graphics rendering turns out to be possible on quantum computers (in decades?) then it will work in a completely different way.
The missing keyword in this thread is obviously blockchain.
leads to a whole new field of research… not immediatly possible to handle triangle meshes… practical scene configurations impossible… further research on a suitable data representation for rendering on quantum computers is deemed necessary…
so what is the current status of all of this 15 years later?
d-wave isn’t a real quantum computer and there is very little information on that boxcat website.
Genuine Quantum computers do exist though (as shown by IBM), but not only are the designs not even close to fitting into a rectangular case, but they aren’t running x86 code either.
Here’s an article! :
? I don’t follow - what do quantum and raytracing have to do with blockchain??
a very high quality article.
[…] In a presentation earlier this year at a quantum game jam in Helsinki, Wootton invoked a handy metaphor for quantum’s non-linear search functionality. Classical computing search is akin to searching a phonebook by last name, as one does (or once did); quantum search is like searching the same directory by phone number, effectively and quickly. […]
what is that supposed to mean? the whole article consists of such nonsense statements.
yes, real quantum computers do exist but if they are more than interesting research projects at the moment is very questionable.
I don’t know enough about quantum programming to comment.
i think the author of that article does neither.
(and i also don’t really understand quantum computers but i know enough to be sure that cycles and eevee can’t be ported to one and that a lot of nonsense gets spread about them. :))
I think better bet first would be some sort of graphene or some other cpu that could get hundreds of GHz speed and then Cycles, raytracing would be instant or almost instant.
Quantum computers are nothing but pixie dust for now, but i do know that intel plan to switch to carbon nanowires or nanotubes for transistors soon once they have exhausted the smallest silicon node which might be 3nm i guess ‘soon’ could easily be stretched out a decade at the rate intel is still at 14nm and milking that node for all its worth.
At present, quantum computers are like the first old gigantic and bulky thermionic valve calculators due to their size, so they are certainly not suitable for becoming “personal” at least at the hardware level … maybe there could be collective use via the cloud .
maybe one day methods will be found to be able to miniaturize (or rather replace the hardware needed to reach -459 Fahrenheit)
Someone says that those based on photon could be more successful for miniaturization.
Having said that, quantum computers will not replace classical binary computing, but will complement it as “accelerators” or “coprocessors” for some operations.