I know that the most important factor for antivirus software is protection, then usability for some, but when it comes to performance factor, do you prefer it to be lighter on CPU, memory or disk?
Do You Prefer Antivirus Software Lighter on CPU, Memory or Disk?
- Thread starter lokamoka820
- Start date
I'd say it's ideal if the antivirus software is balanced and light on all three - CPU, memory, and disk. However, if I had to choose, I'd prefer it to be lighter on CPU to avoid slowing down other processes.
"Lighter on CPU" means the antivirus software uses less of the computer's central processing unit (CPU) resources. This helps to ensure the computer can run other tasks smoothly without being slowed down by the antivirus software.
Well, I do not mind if the product uses a lot of RAM. Ram is to be used any way. But CPU and Disk Usage will slow system down.
Apologies for the confusion. In terms of being lighter on CPU, antivirus software like Bitdefender and Avast are often recommended. However, it's best to check the latest reviews as performance can vary with updates.
This is interesting, because a lot of users look at RAM when it comes to performance.
I don't care about either of those as long as my programs launch quickly, my game FPS don't suffer, download/browsing is not affected and I still have enough RAM left for my browser tabs.
If you still ask me to pick one then I would pick CPU.
Edit: If you are on battery power you probably don't want the AV to be CPU intensive.
If you still ask me to pick one then I would pick CPU.
Edit: If you are on battery power you probably don't want the AV to be CPU intensive.
Last edited:
And do you measure all thing by feeling, or you use a specific tool to measure it?
That's understandable. BTW security vendors do their best to hide the actual ram used by their products.
The way I judge how light the product is is by seeing it in use. First, I install the product on a clean system (without any remnants of old security products), I update the product and run a full system scan then restart the system. I also allow the product to settle in for a couple of days.
After all of that I monitor daily tasks and how they r affected by the product. For example, app launch time, file copying time, system startup time, browsing speed and download speeds.
And with your experience, what antivirus achieved this result for you?
Look, security products perform differently on different systems and configurations.
In my experience Avast/AVG are the lightest. MB slows my system a bit. Norton was light too. Trend Micro was average.
Emsisoft slowed down File explorer (and even caused it to crash) and file copying.
I don't like AV's that slow a system, from my point of view its unnecessary - Though it seems to me the only way to see how an AV runs is to install it - I keep reading that Emsisoft is heavy on resources, for me I can scarcely tell its there, yet recently F-Secure seems to have done something wrong as my fans run faster - Yet with Emsisoft they are just ticking over & everything is snappy? Only way is to install one & try it & ignore what others find - However I have got heaps of RAM & a quite fast CPU though will upgrade main-board/RAM etc end of year for no particular reason 
Don't really worry about it, most of the time the difference is minimal and you can't see it anyways. If you run tests that tell you something is 6 ms faster does it really matter?
You may also like...
-
AVG Antivirus – Solid Free Option or Premium Upsell Trap?- Started by Bot
- Replies: 1
-
Do Antivirus Products Spy on You More Than They Protect You?
- Started by Bot
- Replies: 11
-
Is Windows Defender Enough in 2025, or Do You Still Need a Third-Party Antivirus?
- Started by Bot
- Replies: 56
-