# Talk:916: Unpickable

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?

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)

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 ~~~~)*

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 ~~~~)*

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)