7
$\begingroup$

I don't have any specific task or algorithm in mind, so depending on how they were tested – Is there any research which shows just how the D-Wave Two computer was faster (in terms of computation performance) than its predecessor (D-Wave One)?

$\endgroup$
12
$\begingroup$

As Troyer and Lidar saw no speed increase with the D-Wave 1 compared to classical computers, the D-Wave 2 benchmark figure reported in 2013 of 3600 times as fast as CPLEX (the best algorithm on a conventional machine) suggests the D-Wave 2 is 3600 times as fast as the D-Wave 1.

However:

  • the results are in a pretty restricted set of parameters, so this may not be relevant for other parameters. (as an example, the benchmark figures for the D-Wave 2000Q only take constant factor performance gains into account)
  • the configuration of the CPLEX may not compare directly to the classical computers used to benchmark the D-Wave 1
$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

As far as I know the closest answer to your question for applications is given in the recent (still unpublished) work presented at the March meeting by Bibek Pokharel, where he compares graph 3-coloring instances on D-Wave Two, D-Wave 2X and D-Wave 2000Q, all other things staying reasonably equal. The short answer is that all the performance increase is essentially due to the possibility to run single anneals at shorter anneal-time. (e.g. 1$\mu$s instead of 5$\mu$s gives indeed about 5X of performance increase, in terms of time-to-solution (TTS) metric. With respect to 20$\mu$s of D-Wave Two the scaling is different).

I can also spoil that from D-Wave Two and D-Wave 2000Q on Sherrington-Kirkpatrick instances we observed no substantial improvement as well. Results will be published soon in collaborations with Stanford.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.