- Oct 1, 2019
- 303
- Content source
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeKPiwEfXk
Looking forward to your comments
Amen to thatOne thing to keep in mind with rapidly trying different AVs is that almost every AV today uses either a hash based or a NTFS metadata based caching mechanism to bypass scanning files that they know are clean. As a result, they usually require one full system scan before your PC starts running at the normal speed. Trying too many AVs without giving them enough time to settle down can give you a negative impression that isn't representative of how it really behaves.
I've got to say..... The reconfigured (Avira under the hood) F SECURE has ticked all my boxes!
The point is that most users can configurate the antiviruses to not do auto scanning and to only scan files when opened and the disk usage would be way lower and the performance would be way better. Linus just had all the settings on default like scan with Vt-d which makes it worse on Intel cpus and badly effects AMD cpus. If he had a product like Avast, the webpage even tells you to disable that feature in their antivirus. Fsecure did a good job moving from Bitdefender's engine which is the one of the highest on disk usage so that is a plus. I may even use Fsecure because of this because Avira's main program forces you to install bloatware to use their antivirus and Fsecure does not so that is a plus. Avira is a top 5 antivirus and I'm glad that it is getting more respect. Too many antiviruses still rely on Bitdefender's engine. Kaspersky is also really heavy on disk usage because it uses auto scanning to the extreme and Kaspersky for many years has to keep its reputation of being the best antivirus in terms of signatures competing neck in neck with Bitdefender on who can catch the most threats and who can have the best engine. I wish Kaspersky would license their engine to more companies other than the likes of Zone Alarm, Baidu Antivirus, or Defender Pro.Yeah ditto! Lately, the kitchen sink suite of my choice has been Kaspersky Total Security (it's really hard to argue with its performance both static and dynamic, and the total-ness of the suite rarely results in bothersome unneeded functionality).
However, F-Secure SAFE is still my favorite no-frills AV. Great signatures especially since they switched to Avira, always light, and basically no configuration options needed.
Norton is very light these days and McAfee is even lighter. There are many antiviruses which cause a lot more system impact.Linus tested the three worst antiviruses in terms of performance and they did bad "shocker."
Performance Test April 2020 | AV-Comparatives This is only half true. Mcafee is one of the best while Norton is still one of the worse. I am surprised Kaspersky did the best out of all of them along with K7 antivirus, Windows Defender, and Mcafee. I have edited my post. Ty for the clarification. They are 3 of the worse reputable antiviruses however. Linus was purposely setting them up for failure. He did a test on the first run instead of sequential runs and left some of the settings on default. Even Linus himself said that the difference is 1-3% at worse, but made it seem like such a huge number without context. Of course when the antivirus has to scan every file you transfer it will halt the transfer process while it scans it. Does he want the antivirus to not do its job? He refused to mention he could edit files to turn of auto scanning which if he did the tests then it would show little to no difference. If he change the software to exclude safe files or locations it would also improve the results as well. He forgets that most antiviruses have a game mode in them if he properly enabled it.Norton is very light these days and McAfee is even lighter. There are many antiviruses which cause a lot more system impact.
The problem with performance tests like that, is that I often find my own experience with antiviruses is very different to the test results. For example, the test indicates that Kaspersky is lighter than Norton, while based on my own usage, Norton is definitely noticably lighter. As always, the only real way to get an accurate idea of performance is to install antiviruses and see how they perform on your own computers.Performance Test April 2020 | AV-Comparatives This is only half true. Mcafee is one of the best while Norton is still one of the worse.
That is why I am surprised because I find Kaspersky generally heavy yet based on those tests, Kaspersky is literally the best antivirus in the world as it has similar protection to Bitdefender and apparently is as light as Windows Defender. It makes no sense to me, but like Linus, they do certain things and use certain hardware and software which could influence their results.The problem with performance tests like that, is that I often find my own experience with antiviruses is very different to the test results. For example, the test indicates that Kaspersky is lighter than Norton, while based on my own usage, Norton is definitely noticably lighter. As always, the only real way to accurate idea of performance is to install antiviruses and see how they perform on your own computers.
I agree about Linus making a big deal out of fairly minor increases in transfer speeds.
People on my digital Life fourm did it with a prehistoric Pc.There is some impact even on a fast PC but for me it's a necessary evil - A lot of the speed losses can be negated by removing unneeded services such as search, prefetch, superfetch none of which are needed esp with a SSD yet windows often leaves them running on a clean install with a SSD - Most programs installed feel they are of such importance they start & windows start, most of these aren't needed - I can usually speed even a prehistoric PC by removing unwanted stuff (well maybe)
Cloud AVs can handle it pretty well without any noticeable slow down. But the lack of a proper behaviour monitoring is not good for high risk users.Any security software that is running realtime will have performance impact as it read/write data to your drive, and using your ram or cpu.