Photoshop 6.0 from 2000 looks not a whole lot different on boot. You have the tools on the left, stuff on the right, image in the middle. It's an old interface, but the functionality isn't all that different expect for the different tools they've added since and the tools they've no doubt reworked since.
If they haven't changed the interface apart from making it look prettier, surely it must load in 1/100th of the time, right? No it doesn't.
So what makes photoshop take like 15 seconds on an SSD and 7700K to display an image alongside some tools? CPU's are orders of magnitude faster now with orders of magnitude faster storage. What is taking so long Adobe?
Answer:
It feels like CPU's got 200-800 times faster since 2000, and programs just got 200-800 times slower because 15 seconds is just on the cusp of acceptable so developers basically aim for "just enough" when they could get sub 1 second load times with as much effort as I imagine devs used to put into optimization back in the 90's and 00's.
As you can see, the old EVO 850 outperforms your Samsung 860 QVO 1TB (SATA) quite heavily in the most important values (RND4K Q1T1 read and write).
This is probably because I use XFS because with EXT4 in my previous result from Clear Linux the difference between both drives was much smaller.
It is also just a synthetic benchmark that says little about the real startup times of apps, for example.
If the Crucial MX500 1TB is connected via SATA, it can only be a false result because the result for the read speed (2120 MB/s) goes over the maximum possible for SATA.
I dont feel any difference in performance with the i5-4440 in the startpost. (in normal use: browsing, email etc.)
That is what I mean, despite sometimes big differences in purely synthetic tests, you often see only very small differences in PCMark 8, which is a test that measures differences in realistic situations.
