Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip

Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.os.linux.embedded, uk.comp.os.linux
From	unruh <unruh@invalid.ca>
Subject	Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip
References	(5 earlier) <q4zru.490$rx5.425@fx05.am4> <E4Hru.610246$rL6.270787@fx14.iad> <xGKru.25855$fY2.18253@fx04.am4> <uDMru.15$DB4.7@fx14.iad> <l8ogfu$1bl$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<VPPru.223$Ks5.56@fx08.iad> (permalink)
Date	2013-12-17 03:48 +0000

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2013-12-17, Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
>
> unruh wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> unruh wrote:
>>>> Not sure either what you mean by "digital versions of quantum
>>>> computers".
>>>
>>> Analog computers are different from digital computers.
>>> Digital versions of analogue computers can be made.
>>>
>>> Digital computers are different from quantum computers.
>>> Digital versions of quantum computers can be made.
>> 
>> A quantum computer is not an analog computer. It uses bits to represent
>> numbers just like any other digitial computer does. That those bits can
>> be in a superpostion of states, or that they can be entangled with other
>> bits does not make it analog.
>> It is certainly true that a  quantum computer working on a problem which
>> can be sped up by quantum computation, behaves differently from a
>> classical computer, but just as for classical digital computers, a
>> quantum computer has a few operations which are universal. Ie, any
>> quantum computation can be implimented by repeated application of that
>> minimal set of operations.
>> 
>> The key feature as far as energy efficiency is concerned is that
>> quantum operations must  in general be reversible which means that
>> intheory they require no energy to run. That is of course not true in
>> practice, but they need very very little energy to run.
>
> Current quantum computers function at very low temperatures. I'm using the 
> word "function" liberally :). The energy needed for cooling makes it very 
> energy inefficient.

Far less so than current cpus. As you say, quantum computers do not
exist. I am discussing theory, not experiment.

>
> That said, it seems some progress has been recently made for preventing 
> decoherence of qbits at room temperature. If this work is confirmed, it 
> could open the door to very energy efficient high density data storage, 
> maybe even some kind of long lived RAM that only needs to be refreshed every 
> few minutes or more. 

It would be nice. On the other hand, the way you make qbits last a long
time at room temperature is to make sure that they do not interact with
anything. Since reading and writing IS interacting with something, you
preferrably never write or read to these bits. 
On the other hand as I mentioned, current computers are horrible energy
hogs, so even a little bit could give huge savings. 


>
> Also, if this work can be extended to coherent quantum operations at room 
> temperature then we may see in a few decades the integration of quantum co-
> processors or specialized cores in main stream CPU.

See above.

>
> General quantum CPUs are very unlikely in the the next several decades due 
> to the complexity of programming such a beast for general computing. Even 
> simple mathematical algorithms have been difficult to test in current 
> quantum computer with few qbits.

The problem is that quantum computers really are not better than
ordinary computers except on a small subset of tasks. One might be
simulation of quantum systems (eg atoms getting together to form
molecules), or perhaps some decision processes ( finding the most
efficient or lowest cost process amongst an exponentially large number
of possibilities), both of which would be useful. On the other hand, for
doing your taxes or writing your letters, they are liable to be pretty
useless.


>
>> Note that attempting to simulate quantum operations on a classical
>> digitial computer might be what you refer to, but that would be a
>> completely stupid thing to do, since the memory and time requirements
>> would be far greater than even any classical computer solving the
>> same problem-- it would offer no advantage at all.
>
> The only use I know for simulating quantum systems on non-quantum computers 
> is physical simulations, particles, materials, or molecular simulations.

It is a HUGE industry. Pharmaceuticals for example. And they are
horribly slow, and can only simulate a very few number of components.

Back to comp.os.linux.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-14 21:18 +0000
  Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-14 22:52 +0000
    Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-14 23:38 +0000
      Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-12-14 18:16 -0600
      Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-15 22:47 +0000
        Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-16 00:45 +0000
          Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-16 02:08 +0000
            Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-16 03:30 +0000
          Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-16 08:38 +0000
            Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-16 15:16 +0000
          Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-16 08:38 +0000
          Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-16 08:38 +0000
          Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-16 08:38 +0000
            Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-16 17:51 +0000
              Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-16 21:56 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-17 00:10 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2013-12-17 03:30 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-17 03:48 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-17 18:44 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-17 19:42 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2013-12-17 12:23 -0800
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-18 00:19 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-18 00:34 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2013-12-18 11:06 +0100
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2013-12-18 16:18 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-18 19:19 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2013-12-19 10:05 +0100
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-19 20:45 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2013-12-20 09:40 +0100
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2013-12-20 20:55 +0000
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2013-12-19 09:54 +0100
                Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-12-17 19:40 +0000
    Re: Google set to make its own energy efficient ARM Server chip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-12-14 18:15 -0600

csiph-web