DJ Panda

Level 29
Verified
I find the title a little misleading. When you have straight Windows 10. Windows Defender is the AV. Unless you have fully disabled it is still running in the background. Yeah I find Avast pretty light. Remember take these tests with a grain of salt!
 

jackuars

Level 23
Verified
I find the title a little misleading. When you have straight Windows 10. Windows Defender is the AV. Unless you have fully disabled it is still running in the background. Yeah I find Avast pretty light. Remember take these tests with a grain of salt!
Changed the title to "3rd party" antivirus. :)

The scores arent just from AV-C, the results from PC-Mark tests are also there, which is considered as the benchmark for performance results.
 

In2an3_PpG

Level 17
Verified
Content Creator
Ha what a joke. :D

Your going to tell me McAfee is near ESET in terms of impact. Yeah right, okay. I think even John McAfee would disagree with me.

Windows Defender outperforms McAfee any day of the week. Hell it outperforms id say in my opinion probably half of them listed.

Totally taking this test with a huge grain of salt. :D

Thanks for sharing.
 

Winter Soldier

Level 25
Ha what a joke. :D

Your going to tell me McAfee is near ESET in terms of impact. Yeah right, okay. I think even John McAfee would disagree with me.

Windows Defender outperforms McAfee any day of the week. Hell it outperforms id say in my opinion probably half of them listed.

Totally taking this test with a huge grain of salt. :D

Thanks for sharing.
Technically these performance tests "could" be real, because actually it is not so difficult or complex, to get an AV benchmark....but...but... the grain of salt could be related to the money factor.:oops::rolleyes:
 

Huchim

Level 5
Verified
Malware Tester
Lol! Mcafee being lighter than Emsisoft and same than ESET, what's next? Mcafee for best AV and best protection this year from this companies?? ..
Ok, totally take it as finest grain of salt..
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo

VeeekTor

Level 5
I'll just say it again...I built my PC, I spend more time with it than I do with my wife.

I can test software by the responsiveness of my computer, as in opening different apps.

I have found my PC faster with for ex: Avast, Kaspersky, F-Secure, Comodo FW, and AVG, than with WD alone.
 

Thirio

Level 3
With Windows Defender I noticed a particular slowdown when opening folders with lots of executable files. For example the downloads folder, it would take a couple seconds for the program icons to load on screen because WD was scanning them. Anyone know what I'm talking about? This was months ago though and I don't use WD so I'm not sure how it is now. But besides that it seemed pretty light to me. Btw McAfee was the heaviest AV I have ever tried so for me that puts the whole test into question.
 

EASTER

Level 3
Verified
Probably it doesn't seem but WD is quite heavy.
If I think back to the older versions of Norton... I wouldn't believe now it is the most lightweight AV after ESET.:D
I was thinking along the same lines exactly.

With the mileage those AV's have by now they should have a pretty strong leg up IMHO.

With the new and latest WD sporting what, a behavioral module alongside a real time AV of their own (not to mention whatever else is running in the background for support of them) you might begin to question if that also could give rise for ever more profound and more abundant disk read/writing activity where it could task the longevity of the disk hardware.

Those others ran into that a long time ago but have greatly improved of course (and should) but the mention of Norton conjures back a classic rewind when it was a performance eating monster.
 
W

WolfensteinXeen

From what I've noticed even as of today non-tech people seem to have trouble understanding that Windows Defender is indeed an AV and that it's activated by default.

Microsoft should sum it up that way to clarify:
Windows 7 and older > no antivirus meant no antivirus
Windows 8 and newer > no antivirus means Windows Defender

I see a lot of people that get confused with that (obviously not on this forum cause we're pros :D).
 
  • Like
Reactions: frogboy
5

509322

Just like everything that comes out of the labs, different tests say different things. Some test reports state the exact opposite of another test report. Reading the test methodology does not always offer a clear-cut explanation that makes sense to most people. Then the labs don't go to any lengths to explain that in some tests they are "splitting hairs" between one product versus another. Meaning that differences are so slight to the extent that a user will not be able to notice any practical difference between some products . Finally, what is reported in tests is not always in agreement with what one actually sees on their specific system. There is no substitute for testing on your own specific system.

Anyhow I have noticed much less of a system impact by Windows Defender on all my systems these days on Windows 10 1703.
 
D

Deleted member 178

With Windows Defender I noticed a particular slowdown when opening folders with lots of executable files. For example the downloads folder, it would take a couple seconds for the program icons to load on screen because WD was scanning them. Anyone know what I'm talking about? This was months ago though and I don't use WD so I'm not sure how it is now. But besides that it seemed pretty light to me. Btw McAfee was the heaviest AV I have ever tried so for me that puts the whole test into question.
Old fact, it was like that since Windows 8, seems to be a bit better on the latest versions.