Burrito

Level 20
Verified
Also, I've noticed that there have been members here, who use to find WD heavy, who and recently tried it on the current version as well as the upcoming version of W10 and have found it to be lighter than before. To me, this tells me that MS is indeed improving its performance and it's not just a select few just saying it's light. Again, I mean this in the most friendly of ways, but those who have found WD heavy, when was the last time you tried WD? Again, I am in no way saying you are wrong, just curious, that's all.
And that's a good point.

WD has materially improved in both detection and performance even recently.

WD of today is a different animal than WD of a year ago.

Things are trending well for WD.

(y)
 

Vasudev

Level 29
Verified
If you have a new Intel CPU, it will use the GPU apparently and that reduces CPU load. But in general, yes. That's why I recommend people to rather install any other free AV just to reduce the constant CPU and disk usage.
Why would it use GPU when it consumes more resources than using CPU? Do you mean OpenCL based scanning? If you see gpu load usage its because of WD UI constantly updating scanned files list. Even I thought scan engine switched to GPU but it isn't the case.
WD causes slowdown since it scans everything, that's why on older PC I recommend Kaspersky Free AV or KSC free because it ran like butter on circa 2007 hardware. On modern PCs KSC free is almost invisible.
 

Freki123

Level 6
Verified
Like others said opening a folder with dozens of exe's will take a bit (1-2seconds or so for me on Configure Defender near max settings). But the rest of the time it feels light on the system and if I would care about the folder delay I could easily fix most of it by changing my storage habits.
 

DeepWeb

Level 24
Verified
Why would it use GPU when it consumes more resources than using CPU? Do you mean OpenCL based scanning? If you see gpu load usage its because of WD UI constantly updating scanned files list. Even I thought scan engine switched to GPU but it isn't the case.
WD causes slowdown since it scans everything, that's why on older PC I recommend Kaspersky Free AV or KSC free because it ran like butter on circa 2007 hardware. On modern PCs KSC free is almost invisible.
I'm just going by this.
I don't know if Accelerated Memory Scanning is based on OpenCL but that's what I meant. Intel claims that it's reducing CPU load but it only works on Skylake and up so I'm out of luck. I wouldn't trust their claims either way. I recommend KSC Free as well.
 

mickel1

Level 2
I disabled Windows Defender and only using COMODO Firewall (with CS's settings) because Windows Defender made my PC run slower.

I noticed it when opening and browsing File Explorer (Windows Explorer), opening programs, and running backups with AOMEI Backupper Pro.

My PC runs faster with WD disabled.
 

RejZoR

Level 11
Verified
I use a SSD and I have a mid range 2017 PC ( Core i5 ). I now run WD but a few months ago, I ran Kaspersky Free. I can't see a difference in performance and my Pc boots as fast.
I have a heavily overclocked 5820K with 32GB of RAM and very fast Samsung 850 Pro 2TB and it's still terrifyingly slow. Other AV's don't even make a blip on the performance, but with WD, I can actually sense how things get to an absolute halt when it's scanning them and then all pops up when that is over. It's unacceptable on such high end system and you can imagine what kind of toll it makes on lower spec'd systems or laptops, even if they have an SSD. I have such devices and it was pretty bad. Installing avast! on same systems and I basically can't sense any slowdown at all.
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Thanks everyone for your help. At the moment I'm using Bitdefender Free without any problems so far but I really would like to stick to what Windows came with.
Windows Defender does some things slow, and some things fast. If you are happy with it, stick with it. I use WD. If you do a lot of manual scans of your system (which is unnecessary in my opinion) then you will find WD slow. If you copy massive amounts of files from place to place, you will find WD slow. (Obviously, you don't need to do that very often.)
If you just use your computer normally, you will likely find WD to be very fast.

Tip: if you have a laptop, leave the lid open when you are off your computer, so WD can do its daily scan when you are away. If you close the lid all the time, you force WD to scan when you are trying to work or play or whatever...
 

Back3

Level 2
One problem I had with Kaspersky Free was system restore on Windows 10: I couldn't make it run even after disabling self-defense in Kaspersky. Most of the time, i use Macrium. But I missed system restore ..sometimes... At first, I thought Comodo Firewall was the culprit but when I uninstalled Kas, system restore came back to life. One thing I did though: since I'm well protected with Comodo firewall at CS settings plus HIPS, I excluded Program Files from WD scanning. Maybe it's the reason why WD runs as fast as Kaspersky Free on my system. I read somewhere that CS doesn't even use an antivirus with Comodo Firewall so I don't feel naked.
 

uduoix

Level 5
C'mon now Oldschool, it's fun to have the same discussion for the 20th time... And that's probably why many of us take MT breaks. The repetitiveness is there... and does get old sometimes.

Back on topic.

WD is heavy. This has been demonstrated over and over by multiple test organizations. Here is one recent test:

View attachment 213127

As you can see, it's not just a little heavy. It's a boulder compared to rocks.

But every system is different. And when performance is measured in a few seconds or less, there is little discernable impact for many.

@Raiden is a very credible guy. If he says there is virtually no impact on his system, I believe him.

But to me, this is not a difficult debate. It's been settled many times. WD is HEAVY. But, YMMV. And for many, it does seem to vary.

Horse beating full stop.
These 'organizations' also give five stars to bitdefender total security for performance.

I tried pretty much every top vendor (free and paid) and WD works best. PC is fast, internet browsing is fast etc... I don't even notice when scan my PC.
 

Penguin

Level 1
I haven't had any performance issues with Defender. While I did maybe a year ago, lately, specifically since the last fresh install it's unnoticeable. Opening, booting, closing times are hyper fast, faster than when I used 3rd party AV like Kaspersky, even ESET.
 

blackice

Level 10
Verified
I used Defender for a long time (even with MBAM premium along side :eek:) and recently have been trying out ESET on my gaming machine. I thought it would feel lighter, but honestly I’ve noticed zero difference. Benchmarks for games and app types I normally use weren’t any better. I don’t have big folders of exes, so I can’t speak to that. When the May update hits I plan to go back to just Defender for a bit, at least for the upgrade, especially with recent av incompatibilities with updates. I may stay with it.
 
Last edited:

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
I haven't had any performance issues with Defender. While I did maybe a year ago, lately, specifically since the last fresh install it's unnoticeable. Opening, booting, closing times are hyper fast, faster than when I used 3rd party AV like Kaspersky, even ESET.
This is my experience as well. Currently using WD on 1809, when I boot up the computer (fast boot disabled) the log in screen pops up faster and after I enter my pin, its virtually instant to the desktop. When I use 3rd parties, there's a definite lag from the time I enter my pin, to the time I see the desktop. Same goes for opening programs. Chrome and the new edge browser for example open instantly and I am able to start surfing right away. With 3rd parties there's a definite lag when opening these same programs and the time it takes before I can start surfing.

Furthermore I don't have folders full of exe's as I think it's a waste of space, as I can just simply redownload them if I need them. File transfers for me have been very quick, but even then I don't do that very often. Aside from those 2 things that WD is known to slow things down, virtually everything else is just as fast if not faster than most 3rd parties in my experience.:)
 
Last edited:

Vasudev

Level 29
Verified
I'm just going by this.
I don't know if Accelerated Memory Scanning is based on OpenCL but that's what I meant. Intel claims that it's reducing CPU load but it only works on Skylake and up so I'm out of luck. I wouldn't trust their claims either way. I recommend KSC Free as well.
Still OpenCL can use Intel CPU+GPU to run it causing more usage of CPU. Maybe they will improve it.
 

blackice

Level 10
Verified
This is my experience as well. Currently using WD on 1809, when I boot up the computer (fast boot disabled) the log in screen pops up faster and after I enter my pin, its virtually instant to the desktop. When I use 3rd parties, there's a definite lag from the time I enter my pin, to the time I see the desktop. Same goes for opening programs. Chrome and the new edge browser for example open instantly and I am able to start surfing right away. With 3rd parties there's a definite lag when opening these same programs and the time it takes before I can start surfing.

Furthermore I don't have folders full of exec's as I think it's a waste of space, as I can just simply redownload them if I need them. File transfers for me have been very quick, but even then I don't do that very often. Aside from those 2 things that WD is known to slow things down, virtually everything else is just as fast if not faster than most 3rd parties in my experience.:)
Chrome and Firefox both hang for a few seconds when I first boot or come back from sleep with ESET. This never happened with WD. They almost thrash like a phone app waiting for a server, it’s mildly annoying. One of the reasons I’m leaning towards going back to WD.
 
Just Resumed Using WD on my Intel I7 7700 Desktop with 16gb of ram, Nvidia Geforce 1050, and Western SSD/and WD Black 1TB Storage drive, system performance to me seems as fast as when I was using Avast Free on the system, sure scan time is a little slow, but I normally start that, watch a Netflix movie while it does it, and usually done by time movie over in my experience so far.

Usually Remove 3rd Party Avs prior to Windows Feature updates then decide if i wanna resume using my 3rd party Av, Avast Free or not, not so sure this time around, as performance doesn't seem bad with it thus far, but will see once 1903 is out, and how system is after that i guess

Don't have a folder with a lot of exe's, Mostly game, watch some youtube, sometimes rip audio cd's at times, nothing too heavy use really, stream music with Spotify as well most days, usually browse the same sites daily. Malwarebytes Free scan once a month--Full Threat custom scan, so far nothing found which is a good sign I think
 

South Park

Level 1
WD on Windows 10 (Home 1803) is the first version of WD I've used that doesn't slow down when I open a folder of exe's. I also find it pretty fast when doing a quick scan. WD isn't the lightest during web browsing on a lower-midrange laptop, but I feel that it gets the job done, with no nag screens and (so far) no FP's here.
 

DeepWeb

Level 24
Verified
Still OpenCL can use Intel CPU+GPU to run it causing more usage of CPU. Maybe they will improve it.
You are more optimistic than I am. I don't think Intel cares. They just want to create reasons for people and companies to pick their CPUs over AMD. They lost me with their excuse that it only runs on Skylake and up. It could effectively run on any GPU/APU if they didn't lock it down. Microsoft lost my respect for allowing this fragmentation of Windows Defender to happen but then again I never respected Microsoft that much to begin with.
 

Vasudev

Level 29
Verified
You are more optimistic than I am. I don't think Intel cares. They just want to create reasons for people and companies to pick their CPUs over AMD. They lost me with their excuse that it only runs on Skylake and up. It could effectively run on any GPU/APU if they didn't lock it down. Microsoft lost my respect for allowing this fragmentation of Windows Defender to happen but then again I never respected Microsoft that much to begin with.
My next laptop might be Ryzen or older Intel sold as refurb or used one because there's no damn point to spend INR 138,640+ laptop that performs the same as 5 yr old laptop due to inferior cooling and FW based throttling BS.
I'll be a Windows 10 user for another 2 years or more if WINE 5 improves the performance and allows seamless launching of apps like Windows.
I added my uCode to BIOS and bricked my laptop. I asked Prema for tips and he said its working fine for him. Let me redo the mods once again.
Intel ucode has been updated and sourced to github so that everyone can use them.
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
I disabled Windows Defender and only using COMODO Firewall (with CS's settings) because Windows Defender made my PC run slower.
[..]
My PC runs faster with WD disabled.
Turning off any Antivirus would of course improve PC performance, but I don't see how Comodo Firewall relates to Windows Defender Antivirus. A Firewall is complimentary to your resident AV.

Reference: Q&A - What makes CF so special and should I use it + an issue with it and some other questions
 

Penguin

Level 1