Advice Request Bitdefender and RAM usage | Load test

[SamBill]

I performed the load test with BDTS. Same results again. I did an in place upgrade from Antivirus Plus to Total security using the 6 months giveaway link.

I think the only important feature missing is the firewall component. Webcam and microphone phone monitor are also good to have but everything that Total security offers over Internet security suite seems to be there for the sake of having extra features. IS multi device is the best middle ground they should offer.

That brings me to another question, how much important is an AV firewall for you people? Since Network Threat Prevention probably does most of the network scanning already. (I read the PcMag review, the reviewer tried some network exploit attacks which were blocked by NTP, the results were mirrored in the IS review too).

 

[low L!fe]

I use Bitdefender Total Security 25
And I feel it is light on my system
My Specs: i7 8700/16GB RAM/512M2.

 

[Eggnog]

I'm a Kaspersky guy but after testing BD for several months I can't see any of the issues you have mentioned. It works flawlessly even on an HDD

I have BTS installed on all my family's PCs, anywhere from 8GB i3 HDD to 16GB i7 SSD, and it runs smoothly without any issues. Couldn't even tell it's installed if you didn't know it. I've been using it for quite a while and didn't give it much thought other than my organization uses Bitdefender Endpoint so I figured I might have fewer login issues by using BTS. I never get why some people insist Bitdefender is "heavy", whatever the heck than even means anyway.

 

[monkeylove]

You can probably try benchmarking programs like NovaBench.

 

[Mountainking]

RAM issue on AVs is just not what it used to be on anamic 2/4GB systems. Nowadays a browser tab can consume as little as 70MB of RAM and even much more.
I feel its a non issue.

 

[mlnevese]

RAM issue on AVs is just not what it used to be on anamic 2/4GB systems. Nowadays a browser tab can consume as little as 70MB of RAM and even much more.
I feel its a non issue.

I believe this this a reflex from DOS times when every byte counted if it was loaded in the wrong "section" of RAM. With modern systems and memory allocation controls this is a non-issue.

 

[peterfat11]

An excellent, well done and much needed test. I really dislike when someone calls Bitdefender heavy only because of ram usage even though everything else remains light. All it does is what you said here.

I have bookmarked this thread and will share it when someone says that BD is heavy only because of ram usage.

but also, bd have a lot of tasks while kaspersky and norton and eset... only have 2 -4 task. Also, bd takes more cpu then kaspersky, avast, eset, norton.... which also shows that bd is heavier then some of the and other av

 

[cliffspab]

I have BTS installed on all my family's PCs, anywhere from 8GB i3 HDD to 16GB i7 SSD, and it runs smoothly without any issues. Couldn't even tell it's installed if you didn't know it. I've been using it for quite a while and didn't give it much thought other than my organization uses Bitdefender Endpoint so I figured I might have fewer login issues by using BTS. I never get why some people insist Bitdefender is "heavy", whatever the heck than even means anyway.

When I tried it, BD used two or three times as much memory as Kaspersky and about 10x more than WiseVector. It might not slow down a system, but that still seems like a big difference to me in products which are doing the same job to roughly the same level of competence.

 

[Mountainking]

When I tried it, BD used two or three times as much memory as Kaspersky and about 10x more than WiseVector. It might not slow down a system, but that still seems like a big difference to me in products which are doing the same job to roughly the same level of competence.

I was a BD free user for a long time (approx 5 years) until I saw it was using up about 2GB SSD space (had only 250GB at that time). So, this made me look for an alternative and I settled on kaspersky Free. They are both as lightweight and ram wise I didnot feel they were that much apart except for the disk space hogger that was BD.

 

[SeriousHoax]

but also, bd have a lot of tasks while kaspersky and norton and eset... only have 2 -4 task. Also, bd takes more cpu then kaspersky, avast, eset, norton.... which also shows that bd is heavier then some of the and other av

Yes BD has more processes but that doesn't have any relation to performance impact. Some other AVs use even more. BD doesn't use more CPU in my experience than the other products you mentioned. It's definitely much more CPU friendly than Kaspersky and on par with ESET and Norton.

 

[peterfat11]

Yes BD has more processes but that doesn't have any relation to performance impact. Some other AVs use even more. BD doesn't use more CPU in my experience than the other products you mentioned. It's definitely much more CPU friendly than Kaspersky and on par with ESET and Norton.

from my 1 year experience with their internet security I don't think so, idk if it just me or something, it lag my system harder than kaspersky

 

[monkeylove]

Try benchmark programs like NovaBench.

 

[SeriousHoax]

from my 1 year experience with their internet security I don't think so, idk if it just me or something, it lag my system harder than kaspersky

I see. AVs have a tendency to behave differently on different systems. BD wasn't very good for me when I was using a HDD.

 

[mlnevese]

The fact a software uses more or less tasks makes it no heavier than using RAM. The one using less tasks may be launching multiple threads and using more CPU time than the one that uses more tasks, for instance.

 

[peterfat11]

Try benchmark programs like NovaBench.

its not on my pc anymore, but I will if I am going to use it again