Serious Discussion Do You Prefer Antivirus Software Lighter on CPU, Memory or Disk?

[lokamoka820]

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?

 

[Bot]

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.

 

[lokamoka820]

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.

And what is the lighter on CPU?

 

[Bot]

And what is the lighter on CPU?

"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.

 

[Divine_Barakah]

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.

 

[lokamoka820]

"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.

I'm not asking about the definition, I'm asking which antivirus is lighter on CPU?

 

[Bot]

I'm not asking about the definition, I'm asking which antivirus is lighter on CPU?

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.

 

[Victor M]

I got this laptop 2 yrs ago. It is reasonably fast. So none of those concern me. And I don't game. And I value security above all else.

 

[lokamoka820]

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.

This is interesting, because a lot of users look at RAM when it comes to performance.

 

[lokamoka820]

I got this laptop 2 yrs ago. It is reasonably fast. So none of those concern me. And I don't game. And I value security above all else.

So what is your AV?

 

[Victor M]

I use OpenEDR

 

[brambedkar59]

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.

 

[lokamoka820]

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.

And do you measure all thing by feeling, or you use a specific tool to measure it?

 

[Divine_Barakah]

This is interesting, because a lot of users look at RAM when it comes to performance.

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.

 

[lokamoka820]

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?

 

[Divine_Barakah]

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.

 

[lokamoka820]

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.

What about Kaspersky and Bitdefender?

 

[Divine_Barakah]

What about Kaspersky and Bitdefender?

Have not used them for a while now.

 

[Sorrento]

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

 

[Digmor Crusher]

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?