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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Consumer Performance Test October 2020
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeriousHoax" data-source="post: 914314" data-attributes="member: 78686"><p>Yes that's common for AV with HTTPS scanning. I had seen more or less similar usage for Kaspersky, Bitdefender, ESET but Bitdefender use less on average as it doesn't do HTTPS scanning on most trusted pages you would visit regularly but one thing I have noticed that Bitdefender scans scripts really early. Even earlier than adblocker extension like uBlock Origin while Kaspersky don't/can't scan scripts that are blocked by uBO which is the expected result. I forgot how ESET does it.</p><p>Now comparing CPU usage while browsing with Windows Defender which doesn't do HTTPS scanning is much lower. With "Network Protection" enabled via ConfigureDefender, both "Antimalware Service" and "Network Realtime Inspection Service" use 0.5% CPU on average so 1% usage combined. This may result in longer battery life on laptops if the main thing the user do is browsing. This is my basic observation only so that's why I wish there were professional tests which showcase this impact.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeriousHoax, post: 914314, member: 78686"] Yes that's common for AV with HTTPS scanning. I had seen more or less similar usage for Kaspersky, Bitdefender, ESET but Bitdefender use less on average as it doesn't do HTTPS scanning on most trusted pages you would visit regularly but one thing I have noticed that Bitdefender scans scripts really early. Even earlier than adblocker extension like uBlock Origin while Kaspersky don't/can't scan scripts that are blocked by uBO which is the expected result. I forgot how ESET does it. Now comparing CPU usage while browsing with Windows Defender which doesn't do HTTPS scanning is much lower. With "Network Protection" enabled via ConfigureDefender, both "Antimalware Service" and "Network Realtime Inspection Service" use 0.5% CPU on average so 1% usage combined. This may result in longer battery life on laptops if the main thing the user do is browsing. This is my basic observation only so that's why I wish there were professional tests which showcase this impact. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top