My PC Always Faster without Windows firewall and Defender. Sooo I think this might be best.

[Evjl's Rain]

most AVs require a few days to 2 weeks to collect caches. After that, they will run faster and consume less resource.
I have tried some of these and I can see it's true for avast, kaspersky and bitdefender, especially avast and BD
avast and BD in the first week significantly impact the performance so they don't usually score well in tests

Cloud AVs can perform well in the first week

Qihoo is now not worth to mention because it's a big fail according to MalwareHub. Its HIPS is crap against non-ransomwares. The cloud signatures are poor although it's very light

 

[VeeekTor]

My guess is that Qihoo 360 at default settings would also be pretty fast. No comment on its effectiveness.

True. I tested it a couple months ago, not as fast as McAfee though.

 

[VeeekTor]

most AVs require a few days to 2 weeks to collect caches. After that, they will run faster and consume less resource.
I have tried some of these and I can see it's true for avast, kaspersky and bitdefender, especially avast and BD
avast and BD in the first week significantly impact the performance so they don't usually score well in tests

Cloud AVs can perform well in the first week

Qihoo is now not worth to mention because it's a big fail according to MalwareHub. Its HIPS is crap against non-ransomwares. The cloud signatures are poor although it's very light

Well then in 2 weeks McAfee is going to be blazing fast.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Well then in 2 weeks McAfee is going to be blazing fast.

don't know if we can tweak McAfee performance any further
but I'm confident that my current Avast config is at least x2-3 faster than the default settings. I barely notice any CPU and disk usage

 

[TairikuOkami]

So far I have tested Kaspersky IS, AVG IS, Avast IS, G-Data IS, Eset IS, and Bitdefender IS.

Panda Free Antivirus

(Performance - Settings - General - Disable Panda news / Antivirus - Block files for 10 seconds/Disable show warning / Process Monitor - Disable both)

OK So I have been testing all day... I have a "base" image backup, made with Macrium, and I have been restoring that Image every time I test a new security software.

Since you are testing with imaging, try to fully disable WD, I wonder if you see any difference, I sure do.

Run this, restart, then run it again - [Batch] Windows Defender Disable - Pastebin.com / To enable it back on - [Batch] Windows Defender Enable - Pastebin.com

 

[Andy Ful]

OK So I have been testing all day... I have a "base" image backup, made with Macrium, and I have been restoring that Image every time I test a new security software.

I know you won't like this, but so far, as I have been opening applications, opening web pages, and counting the reboot seconds, the fastest security application is McAfee Internet Security.

So far I have tested Kaspersky IS, AVG IS, Avast IS, G-Data IS, Eset IS, and Bitdefender IS.

That is really strange, but it is nothing wrong with using MCAfee IS.

 

[RoboMan]

OK So I have been testing all day... I have a "base" image backup, made with Macrium, and I have been restoring that Image every time I test a new security software.

I know you won't like this, but so far, as I have been opening applications, opening web pages, and counting the reboot seconds, the fastest security application is McAfee Internet Security.

So far I have tested Kaspersky IS, AVG IS, Avast IS, G-Data IS, Eset IS, and Bitdefender IS.

You have been testing full suites, for example Avast IS is garbage imo. Free version has less unnecessary modules, therefore less RAM consumption. Keep testing, try Emsisoft or Kaspersky Free.

 

[gery79]

You can disable Windows defender,with "NO DEFENDER", Try no AV,with just voodoshield,I did it for awhile,way less resources never got a virus

no av at all is not a good idea. At least an on demand scanner like the superb EMSISOFT EMERGENCY KIT

 

[ispx]

most AVs require a few days to 2 weeks to collect caches. After that, they will run faster and consume less resource.

Well then in 2 weeks McAfee is going to be blazing fast.

@VeeekTor,

i suggest you wait for a month, by then MyCoffee will be faster than vin diesel's dodge charger in furious

 

[mlnevese]

Running a full scan after installing Kaspersky improves its performance a lot in my experience.

 

[amico81]

i think there is a difference between some antiviruses and internet securitys. i prefer the basic version without firewall

 

[GonzitoVir]

You can try Zemana Anti-Malware as real-time protection together with Comodo Firewall. I have tryed it before without any noticable system impact on low-end laptop and it was very light combo.

Very true. Zemana Antimalware is very very light. On the other hand, Zemana Antilogger is a little heavy and noticeable on system impact.

 

[brambedkar59]

most AVs require a few days to 2 weeks to collect caches. After that, they will run faster and consume less resource.

Or you can just run a full scan after installing a new AV . It has almost the same effect, just faster.

 

[brambedkar59]

But if you want also the Avast cloud database, you have to install the web shield component as well.

I believe cloud functionality of avast doesn't require Web Shield, as the sole purpose of Web Shield is to scan Https/http traffic.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Or you can just run a full scan after installing a new AV . It has almost the same effect, just faster.

it does help for some AVs but not all
for example, avast (with caching enabled) and BD. A full scan doesn't replace the caching process
It's true for kaspersky, I admit
however, a full scan with kaspersky takes forever

 

[brambedkar59]

it does help for some AVs but not all
for example, avast (with caching enabled) and BD. A full scan doesn't replace the caching process
It's true for kaspersky, I admit
however, a full scan with kaspersky takes forever

True, some AVs are not designed to do that (pity, looking at you Defender). I believe AVG also asked user to do a optimization scan after a new installation. If I remember correctly Avast had default settings to store cache for full scan.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

True, some AVs are not designed to do that (pity, looking at you Defender). I believe AVG also asked user to do a optimization scan after a new installation. If I remember correctly Avast had default settings to store cache for full scan.

yes, avast and AVG have some caching methods
persistent caching and transient caching: only work for the realtime protection => this is what I mean
Caching for on-demand scanner: separate from the above mentioned caches

I believe WD has no caching. I opened some folders repeatedly, WD kept scanning them endlessly and caused slow icon loading + extremely high disk usage

 

[brambedkar59]

yes, avast and AVG have some caching methods
persistent caching and transient caching: only work for the realtime protection => this is what I mean
Caching for on-demand scanner: separate from the above mentioned caches

I believe WD has no caching. I opened some folders repeatedly, WD kept scanning them endlessly and caused slow icon loading + extremely high disk usage

But transient cache keeps refreshing (or in other words become obsolete) after each update/reboot, which Avast does several times each day.

 

[mlnevese]

it does help for some AVs but not all
for example, avast (with caching enabled) and BD. A full scan doesn't replace the caching process
It's true for kaspersky, I admit
however, a full scan with kaspersky takes forever

That's quite true. Thank heavens you never need to do a full scan with Kaspersky after the first one. I usually let it run while I go to sleep.

One of the points I really hope someday Kaspersky will improve

 

[Evjl's Rain]

But transient cache keeps refreshing (or in other words become obsolete) after each update, which Avast does several times each day.

that's why I disabled it for the first week. I just enabled it after a week when avast has collected enough persistent caches
luckily for me, the file, which stores transient caches, has not been modified since last month
In other PCs, I completely turned transient caching off because it caused high CPU and disk usage in the first week => people complaint about it and they uninstalled avast