When will quantum computers become cost effective? As in when

>>61762659
Quantum computer begins close to Special processor over general processor(CPU).

QCPU for general use? Probably never.

>>61762659
quantum computers are not intended for """traditional""" use-cases. They could do such things, but it would require a rewrite of basically everything.
So no, not in forseeable future

Quantum computers don't work in a way that's useful for everyday use. It does all of the work at once and you can't get a result until it's all done. Also, you need all that space just to hold the cooling equipment.

>>61762725
>It does all of the work at once and you can't get a result until it's all done
The thing is. It does everything instantly, but you'll only get probabilistic results. You'll never get _exact_ results.

>>61762702
>>61762725
Right but at some point perhaps it will be worth it to write general purpose applications for it if it gets advanced enough.
Cooling is an issue indeed.

>>61762659
Not for a long ass time, the temperatures needed are insane.

>>61762659

Physicist checking in.

The infrastructure needed to cool it down for the "electronics" to be superconducting won't be cheap anytime soon, especially the power consumption. What you will see once reasonable quantum computer are an established technologie is that you will be renting such a machine to do the work for you (similar to some of the current supercomputers).

And as already pointed out, they only can do certain type of operations, they are not universally adjustable to everything, just like the differences between a CPU, an APU, a GPU etc...

It is unrealistic to think that you will be able to buy a quantum computer and the cooling system required for less than 100k. The stand alone cooling system, which would usually be a pulse tube cooler reaching 4-8 kelvin and is of reasonable size, would already cost you 40-50k.

>>61763080
just shoot the computer into space and have it cloud compute

>>61763249

Same poster

Doesn't work. You still have some parts that will produce some kind of heat/energy output. As a result, the electronics will heat up and superconductivity will be gone. Once you remove the air and radiation is the only form of energy loss (i.e. cooling for the tards), the energy output of the satellite is most likely still too high. As a result, you will also have to put on a cryostat on there, either a stand alone system running on battery or liquid helium itself... something that is already done with satellite simply for the reason mentioned.

As a result, the quantum computer will simply die once the battery is empty or the liquid helium is used up and I don't think the solar panels will be enough to fuel the 1-2 kW needed for cooling.

In addition, do you actually propose sending a supercomputer to space and use cloud computing is cheaper and more feasable than just doing that on earth when the cooling technology is already available "off the shelf"?

>>61763309
what if the satellite spins really fast

>>61762659
Quantum computers will probably never replace traditional computers. They will either be separate or work in parallel with traditional computers.

>>61763357

Then it will time travel back in time, fall onto earth hitting the appartment of your mom while she was gangbanged by jamal and tyrone when she was 16yo, you will never be born so that nobody will ever have to read your stupid ass retarded questions.

For the theists, just call it god's wrath.

Is it worth having a quantum computer core instead of being connected to a cloud computing quantum computer?

>>61763391
why would it fall into earth by time traveling

>>61763309
You do realise that 2kw isn't much right? It's like four normal computers.
Normal solar panels on earth generally produce 1kw per square meter, special built extra efficient solar panels in space produce quadruple that all day long.
I'm not saying it's a practical sollution shooting quantum computers into space, but the energy usage is not the problem

>>61763555
>You do realise that 2kw isn't much right?
true, depends on where and when though

>It's like four normal computers.
Maybe you should check the power consumption of "normal" computers again.

2kW can be supported by regular satellites, but 2kW is also just what literally the smallest/weakest stand alone cooling system needs to reach such low temperatures. Depending on the design and power output, that can easily go up to 10-15kW. I'm not sure if that power output can be provided by a regular satellite, maybe by bigger ones especially designed for it... but then good look sending such a thing into space for the cost of less than 10-20 million... when you get the earth bound solution for 100-300k.

>>61763080
And then we discover room temp. Superconductors and everything you said goes out the window.

>>61762659
You want to see my D,wave bro?
Quantum could not have been any cheaper.

>>61762725
I plan on running windows on one of these.

>>61763453
>the planet would be in a slightly different position, causing the orbit to change drastically once the satellite dropped out of its temporal bubble.

there is no benefit to quantum computing outside of the sciences

delete this shit thread please.

>>61762807
>general purpose applications
name one
dipshit

They're like using GPUs for offloading computation, except much faster. It's not intended to be a general purpose CPU.

>>61762659
They arent even invented retard