This press release is IMO missing a critical metric: how long an operation takes. If you can run the thing at 1GHz (i.e. 1 operation on a given qubit or qubit pair per nanosecond), then this is awesome. If it’s one operation every millisecond, it’s rather less awesome. This is important for far more than the time a computation will take: it’s mandatory context for their coherence time numbers. For an actively operating computer, I don’t really care about the coherence time per se — I care how many operations I can do before the system decoheres, which affects how much error correction I need. Compare this to DRAM, which also decays (not in milliseconds unless it’s being Rowhammered, but still): the refresh process needs to be much, much faster than the decay.
You can maybe squint at their “sequence fidelity” and extract some information about this.
In principle you’re right, but like most of the leading labs IQM is using superconducting qubits, and the operation time for these is in the 10-100 ns range. That means ~10,000 serial operation, so the two-qubit gate fidelities become probably the most important thing.
You can maybe squint at their “sequence fidelity” and extract some information about this.