- Sep 7, 2016
- 76
I agree, I think it's better to test AVs ourselves + take a look at AV-C and AV-tests's tests especially the columns we do the most everyday (Launching applications, Browsing websites or file coping,...)For daily usage, the test used PC Mark 10 Professional. From the program website we can see the tested workloads:
App Start-up, Web Browsing, Video Conferencing, Writing, Spreadsheets, Digital Content Creation (DCC), Photo Editing, Video Editing, Rendering and Visualization.
All AVs scored very well.
.
The big differences were in other tested workloads, especially for file copying and installing / uninstalling applications. Windows Defender was noticeably worse than most of AVs, here. There is a lot to learn for Microsoft in this area.
I tested myself file copying and the time ratio 'Defender Enabled' / 'Defender Disabled' = 8.
But, I do not think that the above performance chart could be thought as a real performance impact for daily work.
Can't agree with that. Or can I?. fsecure and defender run heavy like an abraham tank!
I am surprised by the good result of ESET.
The only surprise for me is Bitdefender in fourth place, since for me it was always the heaviest. F-Secure and ESET i agree, have always been the lightest.
Why surprised? Quite obvious performance test outcome, since It's coded in pure assembly.I am surprised by the good result of ESET.
For daily usage, the test used PC Mark 10 Professional. From the program website we can see the tested workloads:
App Start-up, Web Browsing, Video Conferencing, Writing, Spreadsheets, Digital Content Creation (DCC), Photo Editing, Video Editing, Rendering and Visualization.
All AVs scored very well.
.
The big differences were in other tested workloads, especially for file copying and installing / uninstalling applications. Windows Defender was noticeably worse than most of AVs, here. There is a lot to learn for Microsoft in this area.
I tested myself file copying and the time ratio 'Defender Enabled' / 'Defender Disabled' = 8.
But, I do not think that the above performance chart could be thought as a real performance impact for daily work.
Yes, each system is a different case, but unfortunately, Bitdefender has never been friendly with my computer, the performance falls a lot with it installed, even though I have a powerful pc.I tested Bitdefender for a few days a week or so ago and was quite surprised by how light it was on my computer actually. As light as Kaspersky and way lighter than Windows Defender... That's why I always tell people to test this kind of software on their own systems...
I did not test other AVs, but file copying eight times longer with Defender enabled as compared to Defender disabled, is not a great result.Would not 8 be something simular as Panda/AVG? Or am I completely misinterpreting the meaning of 8?