Rigetti says scaling quantum means complex tasks, fast results

Rigetti’s David Rivas argues that simply counting qubits misses the mark when measuring progress in quantum computing; instead, focus should be on the complexity of algorithms a machine can run and the speed at which it delivers results, the company says. The assertion came during a panel discussion at Quantum World Congress, bringing together hardware, software and academic perspectives on scaling quantum systems.

Rigetti Defines Quantum Scaling as Algorithm Complexity and Speed

The panel, moderated by Victor Bucklew of the University of Maryland, brought together representatives from hardware, software and academia, including Jason Silbergleit, head of Americas at Classiq. Scaling up adds more qubits to a single system. Rigetti is pursuing scaling through chiplet technology, connecting smaller quantum processing units (QPUs) to create larger, more powerful systems.

This contrasts with approaches requiring massive infrastructure, such as one planned system projected to consume 100 megawatts and cost approximately one billion dollars. Their systems fit in roughly the footprint of two large dining tables, use about 50 kilowatts and need no cryogenic cooling.

The core computational element, remarkably small at the size of a fingernail, relies on atoms held in light, simplifying the addition of qubits without necessitating a full machine rebuild. This approach contrasts sharply with some competitors pursuing systems demanding extensive infrastructure and resources. While scaling qubit numbers is a significant achievement, Victor Bucklew of the University of Maryland, as moderator of the panel, asked what scaling actually means beyond simply adding more qubits.

Rigetti’s response centers on the ability to tackle increasingly complex problems efficiently, emphasizing that a qubit count alone is an insufficient metric for measuring progress. The planned system drawing on the order of 100 megawatts and costing around a billion dollars represents an extreme example, likened to the B-2 bomber of quantum computing, while Rigetti positions itself as building the Boeing 777, a more pragmatic and accessible solution.

Jason, a panelist whose affiliation was not specified, noted the increasing accessibility of quantum tools, with AI and improved software lowering the barrier to entry for potential users. The company stated that the driving question is, “Can we optimize it for this hardware’s specific capabilities?”

QuEra Computing Prioritizes Realistic Problem Solving Over Quantum Hype

Yuval Boger of QuEra Computing highlighted that while increasing qubit numbers represents progress, a system with a high qubit count but substantial error rates would be functionally equivalent to a broken laptop. He explained that long calculations necessitate error correction, framing fault tolerance as an important step toward achieving practical quantum solutions. David Rivas, COO of Rigetti, described their use of chiplets to integrate smaller quantum processing units into larger systems.

QuEra Computing has demonstrated 3,000 qubits in a system, and expects to deliver a 10,000-qubit system in 2028. He detailed QuEra’s customer engagement strategy, beginning with identifying problems that would deliver significant value to an organization, then realistically assessing whether those problems are solvable with existing hardware. “How complex an algorithm can I run? How long will it take?” are the critical questions prospective clients should ask, according to Boger.

Stay current

See today’s quantum computing news on Quantum Zeitgeist for the latest breakthroughs in qubits, hardware, algorithms, and industry deals.

Avatar of Ivy Delaney

Ivy Delaney

Ivy Delaney has been working with neural networks and machine learning since the mid-nineties, back when a couple of hidden layers and a long afternoon of training counted as ambitious. She has watched the field go from academic curiosity to the thing quietly running underneath everything, and she brings that long view to quantum computing. For Quantum Zeitgeist she covers the ground where the two fields meet. That means quantum machine learning and the variational algorithms it leans on, and it also means the less glamorous but more interesting story of classical machine learning already doing real work inside quantum machines, decoding error-correcting codes, calibrating noisy hardware and learning the error models that simulators depend on. She writes about the hardware those algorithms have to run on too, and about the post-quantum cryptography scramble that the same hardware has set off. Her stories typically start with the paper, whether that is peer-reviewed work, conference proceedings or an arXiv preprint, with the source linked so you can hold a claim up against the research it came from. She is unimpressed by benchmarks that will not say what they beat, and by demonstrations that only work in the press release.

Latest Posts by Ivy Delaney: