← Back to context

Comment by Zigurd

5 hours ago

Is there enough agreement regarding what is a quantum chip, and what process technology is necessary to make one?

12 comments

Zigurd

Reply
rbanffy  3 hours ago

I guess it's a balance. If you think their process makes workable chips for your designs, then you can use it. If you can't adapt your design to what they can build, then you need to build your own foundry. Chances are a reliable supplier will push the market in the direction of their process.

If we had someone making GaAs processors in the 1980s for a price competitive with their silicon counterparts and with a long-term roadmap, we'd have very different computers now. And some extra toxic waste problems.

ghaff  4 hours ago

I've been out of the space for a bit. IBM has been betting on the engineered superconducting approach, which makes sense given their background, but there are other options, often for potentially different problem areas. Need to dive back in.

imglorp  5 hours ago

Is there any agreement regarding real applications that warrant fab volume or is this still speculation?

  • bawolff  5 hours ago

    There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are. Unfortunately these projects are basically useless when it comes to them.

    • icegreentea2  5 hours ago

      Can you clarify? Do you mean that superconducting qubits are unable to perform the "real applications" theoretically, or that superconducting qubits at the scale this foundry could produce will be unable, or that superconducting qubits that will foundry could produce will still be outperformed by classical techniques?

      4 replies →