Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
av-comparatives Summary Report 2019
Message
<blockquote data-quote="XLR8R" data-source="post: 858514" data-attributes="member: 85385"><p>Probably because BitDefender engine primarily stresses the disk access, memory and CPU. In my observation (I have used/tested <strong>many</strong> implementations of BitDefender including the SDK versions), the engine is not heavy on I/O calls or adding latency to operations of the system.</p><p></p><p>This means that if you have a good CPU (with as many threads as possible), a fast SSD and about 8 GB of RAM, BitDefender (and it's cousins/brothers of SDK) would probably end up being very, very light.</p><p></p><p>Let's have a look at AV-Comparatives' test computer:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's <strong>very </strong>good and a optimal case for functioning of BitDefender engine (8 thread, 4 core CPU and high speed disk access). Certain SDK brothers of BitDefender amp up the thread count and disk access to the max since most of the SDK products do not utilise the photon performance enhancing technology of BitDefender (except ArcaVir). This allows them to <strong>sometimes </strong>get better performance scores than BD itself.</p><p></p><p>Though, AV-Test gives a better picture, the fact is that even the "Standard PC" of AV-Test uses 8GB of RAM and a SSD, the only drawback is a dual core CPU (4 threads).</p><p></p><p>Things are going to be very different on a PC with 4GB or 6GB RAM, an older gen CPU (yes, people are still using 3rd, 4th gen Intel Core CPUs and AMD FX/Athlon/APU) and a standard HDD, but these aren't being tested anymore.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="XLR8R, post: 858514, member: 85385"] Probably because BitDefender engine primarily stresses the disk access, memory and CPU. In my observation (I have used/tested [B]many[/B] implementations of BitDefender including the SDK versions), the engine is not heavy on I/O calls or adding latency to operations of the system. This means that if you have a good CPU (with as many threads as possible), a fast SSD and about 8 GB of RAM, BitDefender (and it's cousins/brothers of SDK) would probably end up being very, very light. Let's have a look at AV-Comparatives' test computer: That's [B]very [/B]good and a optimal case for functioning of BitDefender engine (8 thread, 4 core CPU and high speed disk access). Certain SDK brothers of BitDefender amp up the thread count and disk access to the max since most of the SDK products do not utilise the photon performance enhancing technology of BitDefender (except ArcaVir). This allows them to [B]sometimes [/B]get better performance scores than BD itself. Though, AV-Test gives a better picture, the fact is that even the "Standard PC" of AV-Test uses 8GB of RAM and a SSD, the only drawback is a dual core CPU (4 threads). Things are going to be very different on a PC with 4GB or 6GB RAM, an older gen CPU (yes, people are still using 3rd, 4th gen Intel Core CPUs and AMD FX/Athlon/APU) and a standard HDD, but these aren't being tested anymore. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top