AV-TEST AV-Test.org Windows 10: June 2020

[Andy Ful]

Hello,
And if you compare these results to av-comparatives performance test, ESET is one of the fastest. The same goes for Trend Micro, in av-comparatives test it's one of the slowest, but in av-test performance test it's one of the fastest. Confusing.

Kind regards,
-sepik

That is normal. They are using different performance parameters and different statistics.
Shortly, the final result can highly depend on testing methodology. There is no agreement on which methodology is the correct one.
The same is visible when you read the posts of MT members. For one member the AV is slow because the web browsing is slower, for another one the slowness follows from opening the folders with many executables, etc.

 

[RejZoR]

Oh boy the situation with folder full of EXE files is the best showcase of how crap Windows Defender is at speed. You can literally see how icons start appearing for EXE files as they are slowly scanned. Only AV I've veer seen do that even on high end system was Comodo.

 

[Andy Ful]

@RejZoR,
@Lenny_Fox is only saying that your personal experience cannot be generalized and gave you an example from his experience. He does not say that your experience is worse than his, and everybody should use WD. He also noted the post of SeriousHoax which in my opinion was objective about WD and based on the analysis of the several test factors.
Many things that can be irritating for you are not relevant to many people at all, and vice versa.

 

[Arequire]

they didnt tell us which CPU they use how many RAM do they have, SSD or HDD

For the performance tests, AV-TEST uses the following configurations:

• Standard PC (HP 280 G2 (1EX45EA): Intel i3-6100 256 SSD, 8 GB RAM)
• High-end PC (HP Z240 (Y3Y82EA): Intel i7-7700, 256 SSD, 16 GB RAM)

 

[jtshadow92]

Glad to see McAfee is doing well

 

[CyberTech]

For the performance tests, AV-TEST uses the following configurations:

• Standard PC (HP 280 G2 (1EX45EA): Intel i3-6100 256 SSD, 8 GB RAM)
• High-end PC (HP Z240 (Y3Y82EA): Intel i7-7700, 256 SSD, 16 GB RAM)

Where did you see that? i cant find it

 

[Arequire]

Where did you see that? i cant find it

Test Modules under Windows - Performance

www.av-test.org

 

[SeriousHoax]

Where did you see that? i cant find it

Here's the one from last AV-Comparatives performance test:

Intel Core i3 CPU, 4GB of RAM and SSD hard disks.

 

[Ink]

Oh boy the situation with folder full of EXE files is the best showcase of how crap Windows Defender is at speed. You can literally see how icons start appearing for EXE files as they are slowly scanned. Only AV I've veer seen do that even on high end system was Comodo.

As an example, sure.

Realistically either take better care of your Downloads folder, or exclude the folder with the 1,000,000 EXE's from the RTP/scanner.

Also I believe Storage Sense in Windows 10 allows users to Empty the Downloads folder after a number of days.

 

[Andy Ful]

For the performance tests, AV-TEST uses the following configurations:

• Standard PC (HP 280 G2 (1EX45EA): Intel i3-6100 256 SSD, 8 GB RAM)
• High-end PC (HP Z240 (Y3Y82EA): Intel i7-7700, 256 SSD, 16 GB RAM)

Most people will not see the difference between many popular AVs when using such configurations.

 

[Nautilus]

Nice to see norton 360 is doing good as well in the tests!

 

[blackice]

As an example, sure.

Realistically either take better care of your Downloads folder, or exclude the folder with the 1,000,000 EXE's from the RTP/scanner.

Also I believe Storage Sense in Windows 10 allows users to Empty the Downloads folder after a number of days.

I’ve never really understood storing large amounts of exes. I mean, for me they are out of date by the next time I need them, or obsolete in some other way.

 

[RejZoR]

As an example, sure.

Realistically either take better care of your Downloads folder, or exclude the folder with the 1,000,000 EXE's from the RTP/scanner.

Also I believe Storage Sense in Windows 10 allows users to Empty the Downloads folder after a number of days.

10 or 20 EXE files is hardly "a lot". Yet Windows Defender still chokes on it like it's millions of them. No other antivirus does this.

 

[blackice]

10 or 20 EXE files is hardly "a lot". Yet Windows Defender still chokes on it like it's millions of them. No other antivirus does this.

My download folder currently has 13 exes. I do not see this behavior with Defender. Maybe it is dependent on the system, that does sound annoying. I agree that is not a lot of exes.

 

[Mariihh]

I use WD on another machine and I never had any problems, in fact I think it is one of the lightest, I never had any performance problems with it.

 

[RejZoR]

My download folder currently has 13 exes. I do not see this behavior with Defender. Maybe it is dependent on the system, that does sound annoying. I agree that is not a lot of exes.

Dependent on system? HOW? I have Core i7 5280K, that's 6 cores with 12 threads @ 4.6GHz, 32GB RAM in quad channel and all of it is running on Samsung 850 Pro 2TB SSD. Sure it's old-ish on paper, but has a lot of horsepower. More than Windows Defender would ever need. How much more horsepower do I need to run a stupid antivirus?

 

[blackice]

Dependent on system? HOW? I have Core i7 5280K, that's 6 cores with 12 threads @ 4.6GHz, 32GB RAM in quad channel and all of it is running on Samsung 850 Pro 2TB SSD. Sure it's old-ish on paper, but has a lot of horsepower. More than Windows Defender would ever need. How much more horsepower do I need to run a stupid antivirus?

Drivers, other programs running, or anything else I’m not sure of. I don’t mean horsepower. My system is not super fast these days either (i7 6700), also not slow by any means. I’m saying I don’t see the same behavior. So it’s not a universal truth of Defender for this case, a handful of exes. Maybe it’s dependent on the exes themselves, who knows. But, if it causes you issues I see why you wouldn’t use it.

 

[RejZoR]

Drivers, other programs running, or anything else I’m not sure of. I don’t mean horsepower. My system is not super fast these days either (i7 6700), also not slow by any means. I’m saying I don’t see the same behavior. So it’s not a universal truth of Defender for this case, a handful of exes. Maybe it’s dependent on the exes themselves, who knows. But, if it causes you issues I see why you wouldn’t use it.

Drivers and other software that creates same outcome on 3 entirely different platforms (3 different platforms from 2 different vendors, AMD and Intel)? I've been long enough into computers to know that's entirely unlikely. And I'd understand on netbook with Atom CPU, borderline insufficient RAM capacity and crappy slow eMMC storage, but I see the same on a desktop that's many many levels faster and higher capacity in every single aspect.

 

[fabiobr]

Nice to see norton 360 is doing good as well in the tests!

They have a great machine learning algorithm.

 

[Mariihh]

Dependent on system? HOW? I have Core i7 5280K, that's 6 cores with 12 threads @ 4.6GHz, 32GB RAM in quad channel and all of it is running on Samsung 850 Pro 2TB SSD. Sure it's old-ish on paper, but has a lot of horsepower. More than Windows Defender would ever need. How much more horsepower do I need to run a stupid antivirus?

Dude, you are traveling on mayonnaise, your comments are always calling other AV garbage and etc, generalizing everything, most users think WD is light, but only you (only) say that it sucks, except yours beloved avast, you are a funny figure. This is already boring and repetitive.