Linux SSD Benchmark Results KDiskMark

[AUTOEXEC.BAT]

My results for the Samsung 860 QVO 1TB (SATA)

System: Intel Core i5-4440, 16GB RAM

I used the following settings:

What are your results?

 

[SchumannFrequency]

Software: Clear Linux -- GNOME Shell -- nouveau GPU driver
Hardware: Intel 12600KF -- Kingston dual-channel 6000 MHz CL40 -- GTX 650 1GB -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO -- Antec P6 -- Xilence XP550 -- ARCTIC i35 -- EVO 850 500GB

The EVO 850 500GB is connected via a standard SATA connection and has been used almost daily for six years.

You are also not much with a 2x faster result in the synthetic test if your app is e.g. 2x slower because it is not properly optimized.

That's why I just measured the startup time of GIMP, during a cold start, so the app had not yet been opened.

Result on my hardware and Clear Linux:
user 0m0.915s
sys 0m0.146s

Total time to open GIMP: 1.061 s

What percentage of windows10/11 users are going to be able to open Photoshop in exactly one second?

https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/pntyvh 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.

 

[SchumannFrequency]

Software: ROSA Fresh 12.4 -- LXQt -- Nvidia proprietary driver -- XFS as root
Hardware: Intel 12600KF (stock) -- Kingston 6000 MHz CL40 -- GTX 650 1GB -- BIOSTAR B760MZ-E PRO -- Antec P6 -- Xilence XP550 -- ARCTIC i35 -- EVO 850 500GB

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.

 

[AUTOEXEC.BAT]

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).

And it should be, since the drive had better performance. But also was more expensive

 

[SchumannFrequency]

And it should be, since the drive had better performance. But also was more expensive

You are right.

This EVO 850 500GB (SATA) is old by now and for day-to-day use in 2023 still very similar to, say, the 970 EVO PLUS (NVME):

 

[AUTOEXEC.BAT]

Setup:

HP Z400 Workstation
Xeon x5687
24GB RAM
Samsung 830 256GB
Crucial MX500 1TB
Quadro K4000


Speed: SATA2 3GB/sec!!


Samsung 830 256GB:
ext4

Why are the read/write results for this Crucial MX500 1TB so strange? Buggy or what?
NTFS

I dont feel any difference in performance with the i5-4440 in the startpost. (in normal use: browsing, email etc.)

 

[SchumannFrequency]

Why are the read/write results for this Crucial MX500 1TB so strange? Buggy or what?
NTFS

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.