Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SeriousHoax" data-source="post: 948548" data-attributes="member: 78686">Even this test could be misleading I think. For example: after setting this, if the main thing you do is web browsing then you&#039;ll see some third-party AV specially those who have HTTS scanning like Kaspersky will use a higher CPU compared to Microsoft Defender.If you&#039;re a developer and compiling apps then you&#039;ll see Microsoft Defender is consuming a higher CPU.Sometimes things like system impact can&#039;t be and shouldn&#039;t be measured in CPU and ram usage. The time it takes to perform a task is more important.In the first example, Kaspersky will not only use more CPU but also have slower browsing speed compared to Defender. By only measuring this scenario one may say Kaspersky is worse than Microsoft Defender, is slow, and have a higher performance impact.In the second case, Microsoft will have a high CPU usage as well as it will take more time to complete the task compared to Kaspersky. Now one may say, Microsoft Defender is worse.Then in a third scenario about launching common day-to-day apps like browsers, office apps, games, game launchers where the main factor is the speed where both of these AV perform similarly in terms of speed even though there is some more or less CPU usage difference. Here AV A using 5% and AV B using 8% CPU while launching an app doesn&#039;t matter in a real-world scenario.Microsoft Defender is both fast and slow. It depends on what the user does on the PC. If web browsing, office apps, playing games are the number 1 priority then nothing or almost nothing is faster than Microsoft Defender, if you do other CPU-heavy tasks then Microsoft Defender is noticeably slower than the most.So just looking at Microsoft Dedender&#039;s position in the AV-Comparative results is 100% wrong. One has to analyze such reports properly and see if that matches his/her own experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SeriousHoax, post: 948548, member: 78686"] Even this test could be misleading I think. For example: after setting this, if the main thing you do is web browsing then you'll see some third-party AV specially those who have HTTS scanning like Kaspersky will use a higher CPU compared to Microsoft Defender. If you're a developer and compiling apps then you'll see Microsoft Defender is consuming a higher CPU. Sometimes things like system impact can't be and shouldn't be measured in CPU and ram usage. The time it takes to perform a task is more important. In the first example, Kaspersky will not only use more CPU but also have slower browsing speed compared to Defender. By only measuring this scenario one may say Kaspersky is worse than Microsoft Defender, is slow, and have a higher performance impact. In the second case, Microsoft will have a high CPU usage as well as it will take more time to complete the task compared to Kaspersky. Now one may say, Microsoft Defender is worse. Then in a third scenario about launching common day-to-day apps like browsers, office apps, games, game launchers where the main factor is the speed where both of these AV perform similarly in terms of speed even though there is some more or less CPU usage difference. Here AV A using 5% and AV B using 8% CPU while launching an app doesn't matter in a real-world scenario. Microsoft Defender is both fast and slow. It depends on what the user does on the PC. If web browsing, office apps, playing games are the number 1 priority then nothing or almost nothing is faster than Microsoft Defender, if you do other CPU-heavy tasks then Microsoft Defender is noticeably slower than the most. So just looking at Microsoft Dedender's position in the AV-Comparative results is 100% wrong. One has to analyze such reports properly and see if that matches his/her own experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification