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
Software
Security Apps
Bitdefender
Bitdefender and RAM usage | Load test
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SamBill" data-source="post: 942953" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Yeah, but one thing I'm unable to understand, if they are loading the signatures into memory then what happens to it as the memory usage is reduced, are they probably moving the signatures to Virtual Memory (to SSD) ? In that case that should take a little more time to get the signatures for detection right ?</p><p></p><p>Personally I like the approach Avast and Kaspersky have, at least according to my experiences they have never used this much amount of RAM and have similar CPU Usage but at the end of the day they all perform similar and offer similar level of protection.</p><p></p><p>So in which scenario this approach is better than those ?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SamBill, post: 942953, member: 87792"] Yeah, but one thing I'm unable to understand, if they are loading the signatures into memory then what happens to it as the memory usage is reduced, are they probably moving the signatures to Virtual Memory (to SSD) ? In that case that should take a little more time to get the signatures for detection right ? Personally I like the approach Avast and Kaspersky have, at least according to my experiences they have never used this much amount of RAM and have similar CPU Usage but at the end of the day they all perform similar and offer similar level of protection. So in which scenario this approach is better than those ? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top