Advice Request Does Windows Defender Antivirus cause Slowdown?

[blackice]

It isn’t he worst idea to revisit performance of a product, especially one like WD. New people may be looking for recent information. A thread on WD from 2 years ago may not be he most relevant anymore when performance has improved noticeably. And all forums have their circular discussions. At the same time it is a repetitive topic and needs rest between relevant changes.

 

[TairikuOkami]

At the same time it is a repetitive topic and needs rest between relevant changes.

Maybe it would not be a bad idea to create a pinned topic like Windows Defender 1809, then Windows Defender 1903, etc. Especially considering, that discussing WD might not be on track, if someone is using 1709 and other one 1903. Eg. WD's detection noticeably improved since 1803/1809, the same can go for performance. Other AVs do not face such an issue, since people are always using their latest version.

 

[Andy Ful]

For me, after looking at several benchmarks and using WD for 4 years:

1. It is far away from 3-rd party AVs while copying many files and installing/uninstalling most applications. The same if someone tries to compile executables, comparing files in folders (binary comparison), etc.
2. It is usually very fast (one of the best) when launching most applications, downloading most files, web browsing, gaming. For some very suspicious files can be slower due to Cloud-delivered protection (up to 10 seconds on default settings).
3. There is a well-known cause of slowdowns (not optimized file caching), so everything that depends on it will be slower.

If the user feels WD in another way it means that there is a kind of incompatibility, probably due to hardware drivers. On some computers, WD can be slow and the cause is not known - not related to processor speed or amount of RAM.

 

[uduoix]

The PC Security Channel has two videos about that topic here:

There is no referral link in description so he has no need to praise product

 

[shmu26]

I just don't understand why WD's slowness or lack of it is a topic to discuss. People have it on their systems already. Just try it. If you find it fast, use it, and if you find it slow, don't use it. Why isn't that reasonable?

 

[Andy Ful]

I just don't understand why WD's slowness or lack of it is a topic to discuss. People have it on their systems already. Just try it. If you find it fast, use it, and if you find it slow, don't use it. Why isn't that reasonable?

People still have a problem with treating WD as a normal AV, which can or cannot be the right solution for them.

 

[monkeylove]

These tests should be taken with a grain of salt. Not just for defender, but for all security products. A couple of points to his tests on performance.

First, these products are being tested in a VM, so already the system is running slower than if it was ran in the actual hardware. VMs are important for malware testing , but aren't needed for performance testing, as you aren't running any malware samples IMO.

Second, performing benchmarks using a benchmarking tool is irrelevant IMO. In this day in age we can use tools like these to measure things so fine, that to us humans we really wont be able to notice any difference what's so ever. I honestly don't think I someone would be able to accurately tell the difference in a score of 750 vs 720 for example, if a person was asked to see if they notice a difference between 2 systems right un front of them with no scores to show the difference.

When it comes to performance testing there are way to many variables IMO to accurately get a straight answer. The way I look at it is, if you have to run a benchmarking tool to see/measure any differences, then there isn't a performance difference, as you cannot see one without having to run a testing tool.

FWIW, the question was raised in the thread title, and it was answered. Whether or not the numbers are relevant was actually addressed in the videos.