>>11323409Quantum computing is an altogether different paradigm of computation. It doesn't provide speedups because of a faster clock speed or something like that, it provides an *algorithmic* speedup. The model of quantum information processing allows a fundamentally different way of performing certain computational tasks.
But hey, here's some numbers anyway. (I had a hell of a time trying to track down these figures, best numbers I could find were from this slightly outdated paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01852.pdf .) The top hardware candidates for quantum computers are currently trapped ion and superconducting qubits. Their 2-qubit gate times (only these really matter) are ~250 us and ~250 ns, respectively. I believe these are still fairly accurate time scales, since the amount of time a quantum gate takes is literally tied with what that gate is. You might think that superconducting qubits are 1000 times faster so they must be better, but at least pre-error correction, it's all about the ratio between gate times and qubit coherence times (how long they "stay" quantum). In that case, the two technologies are fairly comparable.
Again, I must stress, these numbers don't really matter when it comes to comparing quantum vs classical computing. Quite frankly I have no idea how to compare these number to classical computer numbers (maybe comparing to NAND gate times? idk, I'm just not knowledgeable enough), but at the end of the day it's just a constant factor difference.
>>11323417I would be careful using the statement "qubits represent both states simultaneously". As Scott Aaronson stresses, quantum computing is not glorified parallel computation (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvIbrDR1G_c ).
