Littlebits

Retired Staff
avastalicious said:
Allright, am I the only one that sees Bitdefender light as a feather on the resource matter? Like I'm not trolling you guys but i just can't feel it running and I'm amazed by the ammount of people having problems with it.

My main desktop specs:
AMD Athlon II x2 250 @ 3 GHz
4GB DDR3 Dual Channel RAM
SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series 64GB
Windows 8 Pro

I tried Kaspersky Internet Security 2013 and Avast! 7 Antivirus recently and the performance was nowhere near as with Bitdefender. I even had 2-3 seconds delays in opening any program with Avast and the system felt like I had a single core with Kaspersky.
Maybe Bitdefender is optimized for AMD or something? I don't get it. :D
Oh and I also run at 3GHz all the time, no power saving mode is active. I even disabled all power savings in BIOS as well and undervolted the chip with a few millivolts. The result is the CPU staying between 20-30 degrees celsius at all times and the power usage being really low, also ensuring max performance in any usage scenario.
My current custom-built system:
ASUS M4A88T- M Motherboard
8GB DDR3 Dual Channel Corsair RAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T Processor 2.70GHz overclocked to 3.40GHz
Windows Experience Index : 4.9

BitDefender not optimized for AMD.

It wasn't just an increase of CPU and RAM resources that was the problem on my system, it was the system lag and response time when I clicked on anything that was the main problem. BitDefender made everything much slower including system boot time. Avast used more resources but I didn't have any system lag or slow boot process. My system was much faster running Avast. Kaspersky ran even worse on my system then BitDefender did.

Tried BitDefender on my other systems with different specifications and it made all of them much slower in general.

So I don't know what to tell you, software can run much different on different systems, maybe you are one of the lucky ones.;)

Thanks.:D
 

avastalicious

New Member
Littlebits said:
It wasn't just an increase of CPU and RAM resources that was the problem on my system, it was the system lag and response time when I clicked on anything that was the main problem. BitDefender made everything much slower including system boot time.
Wow, that's exactly what happened to me when using Avast. I was referring to that as well, I have no system lag or response time issues with BDIS 2013 installed.

Littlebits said:
So I don't know what to tell you, software can run much different on different systems, maybe you are one of the lucky ones.
Yes, that's true.
I have a hinch though that Bitdefender might slow the system down if the hard drive is also slow.

I see that if you're using a high-end CPU (such as MrXidus's Core i7 or your Phenom hexa-core), it doesn't really help Bitdefender and I think the harddisk is bottlenecking the whole system.

I have seen Dell and Asus laptops that performed very bad even with Core i7s or Core i5s (with any AV installed or without one), the culprit being a very slow 5400rpm HDD.

Also, I don't really want to brag about it because it makes me feel bad, but after buying this SSD the system responsiveness and boot speed just went stupid. Even now with BDIS 2013 installed, on cold boot the time between seeing the Windows boot logo and the Windows 8 Start screen is just 3 seconds.

I apologize if I sounded like bragging in these posts but yeah.. Just wanted you guys to know my experience with it. :)


L.E.:
Yeah, MrXidus's experience with Bitdefender kinda makes sense now.
9TH FEBRUARY 2013
- Removed BitDefender AntivirusPlus 2013 and replaced with Windows Defender.
(Reason for removing BitDefender: Stress usage on disk performance, VERY slow scanning time, Negativity impacted boot performance time by about 30 seconds. Navigating through folders in Explorer slowed down in a noticable way. Overall not happy with it.)"
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
I don't think it is my hard drive causing the system lag, I have a high end hard drive- http://www.techwarelabs.com/st2000dl003-9vt166/all/1



Enjoy!!:D
 

avastalicious

New Member
Aw, man.. I'm sorry to tell you this, your drive has a rotation speed of 5900 RPM. That's not really a high end, and it's not optimized for performance.
Barracuda Green Drives/Western Digital Green are economical drives optimized for storage, not for running an OS of it. You need at least a 7200rpm harddrive to run an OS at it's optimal performance. :)

The thing with 5400 or 5900rpm drives is that they have high-latency/high access times, thus your system lag when you had Bitdefender installed.
There kinda are 3 categories of HDDs, 5400-5900rpm for storage, 7200rpm for an OS drive, and 10000rpm for high performance needs.

So my theory is confirmed, Bitdefender really doesn't like green drives. :)
 
P

Plexx

avastalicious said:
Aw, man.. I'm sorry to tell you this, your drive has a rotation speed of 5900 RPM. That's not really a high end, and it's not optimized for performance.
Barracuda Green Drives/Western Digital Green are economical drives optimized for storage, not for running an OS of it. You need at least a 7200rpm harddrive to run an OS at it's optimal performance. :)

The thing with 5400 or 5900rpm drives is that they have high-latency/high access times, thus your system lag when you had Bitdefender installed.
There kinda are 3 categories of HDDs, 5400-5900rpm for storage, 7200rpm for an OS drive, and 10000rpm for high performance needs.

So my theory is confirmed, Bitdefender really doesn't like green drives. :)
Funny enough, on my 7200rpm drive I have experienced the same as Littlebits.

In the end it will depend on systems, not really because BD doesn't like certain drives.

Most economical laptops running i3's, i5's and AMDs in Europe come with a 5400rpm with a decent size of storage, not a 7200rpm with decent size of storage due to its actual purpose: economical laptop.


PS: you can run an OS just fine with a 5400rpm drive.
 

avastalicious

New Member
Most intriguing! :p

Well, no matter. You can pair a good security solution with every system anyways, you just have to find the one you like and that it runs well for each individual.
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
The Spin Speed (RPM) of your hard drive has nothing to do with BitDefender causing system lags.

I have another system with Western Digital Drive Model: WD1600AAJB-00PVA0 with 7200rpm and BitDefender caused system lags on it worse then my other system with 5900rpm.

Any way if another Antivirus can run perfectly fine without any system lags on a hard drive with much less then 5900rpm then BitDefender should do the same as well.

Most Desktops and Laptops come with 5900rpm or less hard drives, to get a system with 7200rpm, you usually have to special order it or just replace the hard drive yourself. 7200rpm hard drives are usually small hard drives not large enough for a basic system.

In case you didn't know larger capacity hard disk spin speed is slower because they are larger, it doesn't have anything to do with the disk data transfer rate. Just think of an old record player, they used to come with different speeds. There was the 45 speed record which was small had only one song on each side and the 33 speed record which was large had several songs on both sides. The sound quality of the 45rpm wasn't no better then sound quality of the 33rpm records.

Some newer 5400 rpm hard drives has faster disk data transfer rate then older 7200rpm hard drives. They also can perform better.

You should never go by Spin Speed (RPM) when comparing the performance of hard drives. Check the disk data transfer rate that is what will make the difference.

A 7200 RPM hard disk drive is faster than a 5400 RPM hard disk drive.

Truth :


If all other factors (areal density, platter size, etc.) are the same, a hard disk drive with a higher spindle speed will be faster than one with a slower spindle speed. However, the spindle speed alone is never a foolproof indicator of a drive's performance level.

A higher spindle speed only guarantees a faster random access time for a particular platter size. It is unaffected by other factors, like number of platters, platter size, cache size, etc. This is why a faster spindle speed is always desired in servers where random access performance is far more important than raw transfer rates.

The track-to-track seek time and the raw transfer rate benefit from a higher spindle speed as well, but they are also affected by areal density, which is basically the number of bits stored in a given area. All other factors alike, a higher areal density will reduce the track-to-track seek time and increase the raw transfer rate.

Things get even more complicated when you involve different platter sizes. The larger the platters, the higher the overall transfer rate - much more at the outer tracks but less on the inner tracks. In other words, a 7200 RPM hard disk drive will improve random access performance but it will not guarantee that the drive will be faster than a 5400 RPM hard disk drive in other aspects.

For example, compare the performance characteristics of two 3.5" hard disk drives - the 2 TB WD Caviar Black (WD2001FASS), which spins at 7200 RPM; and the 2 TB Samsung EcoGreen F4 (HD204UI), which spins at just 5400 RPM.

The WD Caviar Black drive was over twice as fast than the Samsung EcoGreen F4 at random accesses, but when it came to pure transfer rates, the Samsung EcoGreen F4 was actually 7% faster than the WD Caviar Black, despite its 25% slower spindle speed!

This is why it is important for those who value performance to actually read reviews on the hard disk drives they are interested in. Even drives from the same family often have different characteristics and therefore, differ greatly in performance. http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=84&pgno=10

Enjoy!!:D
 

avastalicious

New Member
Yes, you are indeed right. ^_^

Also, we all said that AVs are performing different on every system. It would be fun though to identify the variables and see what exactly makes a security product perform better/worse.

That would, of course, require a lot of trial and error and access to different configurations, be it dual/quad cores, HDD/SSDs, different operating systems. :D
 
P

Plexx

Earth said:
What about Bitdefender on SSD?
impact not as noticeable as if it was on a sata.

Boot time still quick but if you compare it with ESET on SSD, you will see a small difference as in ESET is faster.

Accessing and opening stuff even on SSD, there is a small impact compare to no AV or with ESET.

Ran for 2 days before ditching the AV version of BD 2013.

Just not worth the hassle in my eyes. I still believe detection in BD is nothing. In fact there are many areas where they should improve, starting off with their Auto-Pilot mode. Second being the Scan speed. Don't think any other solution is as slow as BD. If anything Kaspersky's 2013 1st full scan can be compared and even so, it is faster.
 

Akash209

New Member
I also get the same problem.. My pc is going slow down..!!!
I recommend you if any one use dual core proceser and 2GB ram then dont install Bitdefender,kaspersky,Avast, Trendmicro,Norton bcz they slowdown your computer..!!!:(
You have choice Avg, Eset and K7totalsecurity, Quickheal..!:)
 

Gnosis

New Member
Use Avira. If it slows down your PC, your PC definitely has issues. Avira is about as light as they come unless you are like me and use a BB in place of a traditional AV, which makes things even lighter for the system.
 

terene

Level 10
Verified
Nomad said:
Well, I was using it on my Windows 8 laptop. I have 4 GB ram and a Pentium B980.

I'm trying it on another computer with Vista, and I will see how that goes.

I'm replaced it with ESET last night, and it is much better.
You do not know what has caused your system slowdown, I have BIS 2013 installed on this old config : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6400+ with Windows 8 and I can say it works without problems and especially without slowing down the system :rolleyes:
 

Overkill

Level 31
Verified
Trusted
Akash209 said:
I also get the same problem.. My pc is going slow down..!!!
I recommend you if any one use dual core proceser and 2GB ram then dont install Bitdefender,kaspersky,Avast, Trendmicro,Norton bcz they slowdown your computer..!!!:(
You have choice Avg, Eset and K7totalsecurity, Quickheal..!:)
Avast is very light, that's the only one i'll disagree with the others are possible
 
P

Plexx

Overkill said:
Avast is very light, that's the only one i'll disagree with the others are possible
avast since v7 does increase the boot time for a few seconds on a few high end laptop (different systems ranging from i5, i7 2nd and 3rd generation), but then again on the mid end systems I loaded avast!, it is basically nonexistent (dual core AMD and the older intel duo cores).

Unable to agree or disagree on this one since it is not made it easy to do so.
 

Gnosis

New Member
I recently installed Bitdefender Internet Security 2013 on my other desktop that plugs straight into the wireless router. Things seemed OK at first, but day after day, for the last week, temporary freezes began happening.

My other PC's can get online, but that one can't now. It went from doing fine after I installed BIS 2013, to giving me Outlook Client errors (still was getting email and able to hop online at that time). The wireless internet was working and then all of a sudden I could not get online. I called my ISP but we found that all my other PC's could hop online with normal speeds, but now my desktop at the hard wire to the antenna will not connect at all, though its says it was connected (Realtek/Cisco). Both myself and the ISP confirmed that I was able to send packets out, but I could NOT receive any. Then, after a day or so, I was not sending or receiving packets at all, yet my icon on the taskbar says I was connected.


That PC always gets online if the ISP is up and running. Usually the other PC's might have to be restarted, or have their connections repaired, but unless the ISP is down, this particular PC that is wired into the wireless router ALWAYS has had a solid internet connection in the past, even when the satellite PC/laptop did not have connectivity due to dropping and occasional signal.

That PC is used only for email and printing email, and I never click on spam email links, and it is as malware free and responsive as one could hope, esp, considering that it is 3G of RAM and 2.5Ghz. Besides that, it has always been very responsive and ALWAYS connected to the internet with no hangups.

I tried shutting down all of BitDefender's functions to see if it would help, but I was still getting freezes where the mouse arrow becomes an hourglass. I used Process Hacker and saw no evidence of CPU overload or suspect services. Then, I started noticing that Bitdefender, itself, was requiring me to click the UI multiple times to make things happen, and it got as buggy as I have ever seen an AV get, and I have tried many in the past. I have witnessed nothing like this, EVER, with any AV.

I tried uninstalling it with REVO, but it got into some kind of loop and hangs at one point. I tried Bitdefender 2013 internet security removal link tool, but it keeps going in circles too. Bitdefender is not listed on add/remove programs or REVO now, but its icon keeps showing on the toolbar and splash screens come up. Freezes are still going on here and there. System Restore did not help.
I used Windows Search for "all files and folders" and found nothing.

I am at a loss.
 

Nedim

Level 11
Verified
Bitdefender newer worked well on my PC.The main issue was slow internet.That's why I tried Bullguard and I have to say it's brilliant.
 

Gnosis

New Member
It finally was removed with the Bitdefender removal link. I had to let it go forever.
I should have know to not finish the Bitdefender install in the first place. I have never seen an AV take over 1 hour to install on that computer, or any other computer. It simply took an eternity to install that buggy grayware. Uninstall was no different.
 
D

Deleted member 178

use Iobit Uninstaller. very effective to remove all traces via its "force uninstall" mode.

note: Now you know why Rollback RX is THE tester ultimate tool ^^

When you see this kind of issues reported multiple times; and you see BD all-the-time winner in every test labs; you know that those labs are not so "independent"...