# Talk:916: Unpickable

2x2 rubik's cubes are harder. Just sayin'. __Davidy__²²`[talk]` 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

- What? A 2x2 is often solved in under two seconds at competitions. The world record for 5x5 is 48.42 seconds. See also below. Mumiemonstret (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

- r/wooosh

- I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) -- 184.11.73.88 (talk)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

- I solve the cube with corner pieces and edge pieces in separate steps, so I find 2x2s harder. I just have to do the corner steps. 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC) -- 184.11.73.88 (talk)

- 2x2s are certainly not harder than any other Rubik's cube by ANY standard. As the corners of any Rubik's cube have the same rotational moves, you have to solve a 2x2 at some point when solving any cube. 4x4 is harder than 5x5 though, because you can rotate away the middle pieces.85.164.251.29 07:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at speedcuber's results I would disagree. 4x4 takes less than half the time. But you have a point since the "general geek" targeted by this comic's scheme might find it easier to deduce the function of a 5x5 due to the centerpieces. I still think you'd need to be a brilliant geek to be able to solve a 5x5 without prior knowledge. Mumiemonstret (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um, the 5x5 Rubik's cube group also has the 4x4 group as a quotient, the same way the 4x4 has the 2x2 as a quotient; just look at the cube minus the T-center tiles and central edges.
- Of course, the ideal diversion would be a scrambled 1x1. 172.69.208.136 15:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

- I've been cubing many different puzzles for years, and in my experience, 2x2s are easiest, 3x3s are a little harder, and every cube higher than that is the same difficulty, except the bigger ones take longer (meaning a 4x4 and 7x7 are the same difficulty, just 7x7s take much longer). Trogdor147 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This would likely be found in the residence of my colleague [**REDACTED**], as he has a collection of odd Rubik's Cube clones. -- 173.72.159.14 (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

Maybe just the geek talking here, but what's with 5x5 Rubik's cube? It should be called 5x5x5 Rubik's cube. Ok, in the title text that might be a 2-dimensions-joke. But see the previous comments. Do the readers and "explainers" all think only 2-dimensional? 162.158.83.144 (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

- cubers tend to refer to sizes where all three dimensions are the same as just NxN. i don't know why, it's just convention. Undergroundmonorail (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can confirm. I would just call it a 5x5, without even the "Rubik's cube" (because, you know, I don't think Rubik's even MAKES 5x5s; and even if they did, they would probably be shit). Beanie (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can confirm. Rubik's 5x5 is terrible. Kvarts314 (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- A) Rubik's makes 5x5s, B) They're alright, although they do get stuck sometimes, and C) That 5x5 would easily nerd snipe me. 172.70.207.29 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

- Can confirm. I would just call it a 5x5, without even the "Rubik's cube" (because, you know, I don't think Rubik's even MAKES 5x5s; and even if they did, they would probably be shit). Beanie (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)