Arequire

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
The issue is Defender has no caching. If you run a full scan with Defender, let it finish, then immediately run another full scan, both scans will take equally as long because its scanning the exact same files over again. If you do the same with Bitdefender, the second full scan will probably only take a couple of minutes because it'll only scan files that are new or files that have had changes made to them since the last scan.
This applies to real-time protection too and it shows how antiquated Defender really is.
 

Moonhorse

Level 26
Verified
Content Creator
The issue is Defender has no caching. If you run a full scan with Defender, let it finish, then immediately run another full scan, both scans will take equally as long because its scanning the exact same files over again. If you do the same with Bitdefender, the second full scan will probably only take a couple of minutes because it'll only scan files that are new or files that have had changes made to them since the last scan.
This applies to real-time protection too and it shows how antiquated Defender really is.
This is the thing i like about bitdefender, its very smart
 

TairikuOkami

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
Novabench gave me messy results:

No AV: 1851/1877
WinDefender: 1855
FortiClient: 1864/1856

NoAV seems to use more disk and AV more RAM, AV probably avoids disk and prioritizes processes, like Process Lasso. I have pagefile disabled, so maybe that is the reason, I do not see much of a difference. Passmark showed me, that 3rd party AV slightly improved performance, but the point is, it did not decrease it, surprisingly. CPU usage seems negligible with or without AV.
 

Attachments

plat1098

Level 9
Verified
Frankly, the numerical differences here don't convince me of anything. What does 20 or 39 points between benchmarks tell me? Now, if it was consistently 100 points, OK. But this seems very machine-specific, like someone already pointed out. And the higher your benchmark score ( eg: 1000), the more difference in points it would take to make you notice. I also tested this with NovaBench, there was no test/retest reliability--at all!-- from one day to the next. Too many factors influencing the outcome. And if you have an HDD plus older CPU, forget it. Reach for the BitDefender or whatever. This is practically common knowledge!

The comparatives labs testing AV are already assessing performance, and doing so within specific parameters.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Meh, I actually don't even notice WD in my day to day usage. The only times I notice a little something is when I'm copying a large amount of files, but I don't do this very often, so really aside from this I don't notice it all. In fact I've noticed improvements to things like loading web pages and system startup when using WD.

Frankly, the numerical differences here don't convince me of anything. What does 20 or 39 points between benchmarks tell me? Now, if it was consistently 100 points, OK. But this seems very machine-specific, like someone already pointed out. And the higher your benchmark score ( eg: 1000), the more difference in points it would take to make you notice. I also tested this with NovaBench, there was no test/retest reliability--at all!-- from one day to the next. Too many factors influencing the outcome. .
This is a very good point. The problem now a days is that with technology we have available to us, we can measure things to such a fine detail that to humans it's unnoticeable. We know WD can have an impact on some systems, depending on your software/hardware configuration, heck even some of it depends on how you use your system, but for the most part,(at least in my experience), you probably really won't notice too much of a difference.

I tested this program on my gaming PC with WD, F-Secure, Norton, ESET.
Scores differences about 1%...
But on my eye don`t see any difference in use.
Sometimes I get the impression that TPCSC is not very reliable
I am not a huge fan of his tests, too much bias and not very consistent in his conclusions IMO. His dislike for WD is very evident, I mean he cannot even start the video without criticizing WD and he hasn't even done the test yet. Even if WD were to perform half decent according to him, he still would go on and on why you shouldn't use it. One thing I think he needs to state at the beginning of each of his videos is the simple fact that he works for a competitor (assuming he still does). I know he talked about it in the past, but IMO if you are going to test any competing product, you need to make this explicitly clear in every single one of your videos, it's only good ethical practice.

IMO there's a huge flaw in this test and that's he's running it in a VM. If you are running malware samples, fine, but if all you are doing is running a "performance test" with no malware samples involved the only accurate way is to run in on the host system directly, as the VM will introduce it's own set of issues when it comes to performance.

@KonradPL your experiences are the same as mine. I've played with WD and lot of 3rd party programs and performance wise I really couldn't say I've noticed a HUGE difference, maybe a little here or there, but not enough to write home about. This is the reason why people need to take any test with a grain of salt and try each program they are interested in for themselves. It's the only true way to know for sure if it will meet your needs and see if it impacts your overall system performance in anyway.
 
Last edited:

KonradPL

Level 3
Backup speed of my system with WD by Macrium : ~500mo/sec

Backup speed of my system with another AV by Macrium : ~800mo/sec

Sure, WD does not slow stuff...
All AV`s does slow down system.
Remember any system is a different world...
In my gaming experiences WD is pretty light but his lihtnes is unstable...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raiden

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Backup speed of my system with WD by Macrium : ~500mo/sec

Backup speed of my system with another AV by Macrium : ~800mo/sec

Sure, WD does not slow stuff...
To be fair I nor did any one say it never slowed anything down, in fact I agree with you, when it comes to transferring large files (backups can be considered the same thing), it does in fact slow it down. I agree with your previous post that MS does need to add some sort of caching and some other improvements to how it scans files to improve on this, but aside from this task and maybe a few others it's really not noticeable IMO.

I guess my next question is, aside from back ups and transferring large files, do you really notice it on your system in your day to day tasks?
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads