- Feb 17, 2018
- 870
Totally inaccurate, Norton360 is light as a feather.
Performance Test October 2019
- Thread starter amico81
- Start date
- May 3, 2015
- 1,536
Performance is heavily dependent on system configuration and health some security software will have conflicts with software and even hardware drives. At best a test like this can be seem as a guideline that is true in the test configuration but may not be true in your particular set up.
- Mar 16, 2019
- 3,635
Another thing which is probably not much important is the time an AV takes to remove malwares. Removing malware is surely not just about deleting the samples but I'm mainly talking about malwares that you haven't even executed. AVs like Windows Defender, Bitdefender is very slow at deleting malwares, Avira is slow as well with their silly Luke Filewalker thing. Norton is on the slower side with pretty high CPU usage, Kaspersky is fine, ESET, Emsisoft, WiseVector is very fast. Forgot about AVG and Avast.
- Nov 26, 2017
- 708
Can you post a Screenshot of your task manager please? If you still use Norton of course
sirius777
Level 2
- Oct 24, 2019
- 50
1GB RAM is not much.
And you should also read Kaspersky's system requirements. It says 1 GB of free RAM for 32-bit operating systems and 2 GB of free RAM for 64-bit operating systems.
We must remember, not everyone lives in places with wealth and low cost equipment. In the USA, you can go pick up a nice refurbished elitebook notebook with quite a lot of power for around a hundred bucks. But with 1GB of TOTAL ram, you really can't be running any antivirus in real-time and may be wise to choose an on-demand scanner only or an SRP/Anti-Exe product rather than a suite.
It should be obvious by now that AV software doesn't run same on every system. WD on my PC works fast, maybe not fast as ESET, but faster than any other AV. Someone else probably have different experience.
But "my AV is the better and faster then yours" posts are always fun to read
But "my AV is the better and faster then yours" posts are always fun to read
With all due respect I would not recommend norton or my worst enemy
Totally inaccurate.
With all respect, i would not recommend your advice to my worst enemy.
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
Bitdefender better than kasperskyBitdefender lighter than microsoft.......no way!!! Bitdefender 2020 is buggy ( what else is new ) and a known offender to trash systems, putting them to a crawl.....ilde state between 400-500 mb ram ussage.they are right about eset through very light on the system , slightly lighter than kaspersky.
Of does feel light on my system , but scanning speed is riddicoulisly slow, as is the transfer rate of copying files and folders...that's why it is the first thing that gets nuked from my system!! Btw Nice beard you have ForgottenSeer 58943! I never would have guessed you looked like that in real life!
Kaspersky less effective protection wise than bitdefender? You must be Joking right??
There are many ransomware that Kaspersky could not detect ex. files .toes
and other
- Nov 26, 2017
- 708
I've never seen any ransomware
Probably I'm not stupid as average Joe.
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
look hhhhI've never seen any ransomware
Attachments
- Dec 30, 2012
- 4,809
Sorry guys but i just can't help myself
- Jul 2, 2014
- 1,689
I still love the first laptop I bought1GB of RAM?
I have another one with 12GB RAM
- May 13, 2017
- 2,487
Technically, you would not notice a difference on "a normal" PC, so they used a template for the low spec devices, where the question matters.1GB of RAM?
My mom's laptop, used just for browsing, is AMD quad core with 4GB, yet any AV drags it down noticeably, so I use none there, it is a bit faster.
- Sep 8, 2019
- 461
Norton uses 80 megabytes when idle, is that more than bitdefenders 400 megabytes?
- May 13, 2017
- 2,487
Did you include all processes/services, 80MB seems unreal? Besides, those tests fail to correlate CPU/HDD/RAM usage. They all matter.
I would pick AV, that uses more RAM over AV, that uses CPU/HDD, any time. RAM is there to be used, CPU time-I/O operations, not so much.
I missed being infected so much, that I did it on purpose, just to see, what happens (wannacry). I had to reinstall and re-download steam games, that was all, but I have learnt in the process, so I bet, that my steam games would be untouched now, because of permission settings.I've never seen any ransomware
avira and mcafee are light for me and im not using a gaming computer
- May 26, 2014
- 1,339
The use of RAM does not have a direct correlation with the impact of antivirus on the system, not to mention that most manufacturers use tricks to hide the actual consumption.
As the user @TairikuOkami mentioned, there are other far more relevant criteria for measuring impact on performance than Task Manager's memory usage.
- Jan 27, 2018
- 1,264
Take anyone saying an AV is light or heavy with some suspicion, of course this is dependent on ram, software configurations etc. And I just betcha that a lot of posters who say an AV is heavy already have a predisposition and would say the AV is heavy based on their dislike or other chatter that they have read somewhere.
Similar threads
