AV-Comparatives Real World Protection Test July 2017

I also agree. After uninstalling Norton and using WD I find very little difference in real life performance difference on my 7 year old i3 laptop, regardless of what some chart shows. And before anyone suggests Norton is heavy, if you haven't used it since 2009...

 

Yes it can slow down system in my experience also.

 

I got an AMD FX and some Core i7 rigs here and I can definitely say that WD feels slightly heavier - but not very significant. I think it has a lot to do with HDD access - WD seems to be high on that (CPU usage doesn't matter with CPUs like mine).

 

Kind of heavy, isn't it (WD)?

 

My PC is not top of the line. I think I mentioned this earlier this summer. However I do not feel that WD is heavy on my system. That said, I am sure my SSD has a lot do do with it. However, I do not do full scans and test malware on this box for obvious reasons. Maybe if I had a folder full of ransomware and I right click to scan the folder with WD it would be a hog. Is that what most of you are referring to?

Daily usage for me on a few different machines (all running W10) I feel and see nothing.

 

I mostly notice slowness when a lot of non-malicious data is copied or folder with a lot of files is opened. The process is much quicker if WD is disabled.

 

The performance isn't static... It may affect some people worse than others. Personally, I've had hardly any performance issues when using Windows Defender in the past.

Take the AV-C results with a grain of salt.

 

It is rather peculiar some people find Windows Defender 'heavy' and others not. At the end of the day, it is the same software on all these machines so there must be some other factor which seems to cause performance issues for some.

 

I don't think it is. The same can be said for a lot of other antiviruses too. I believe one of the main factors is how fast the CPU is. If you have a very fast CPU, then most likely WD is going to have very little impact on performance, but it can cause slowdowns on slower CPUs.

 

Or it just depends on your system. I've tried quite a few AV's on this same system. All have felt heavy or accessed the disc constantly, other than Avast Free. I've stayed with it now and it is super light. It just depends on your system I guess. But a number of others (Windows Defender, Avira, Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Comodo, etc. - all heavy on my system)...Avast? Not at all. And it's free. Win/win.

 

I don't see how you can force-feed Defender to everyone in good conscience. That's like saying Kaspersky is perfect everywhere, what's wrong with you, or ESET. Defender is good on here but conditions are ideal for it. Whatever.

 

I have always said that heavy or light depends on your system. What is heavy on my computer may be light on yours and vice-versa. Always test whatever product you want to use on your system before saying it's light or heavy. It's in no way an Universal truth...

The same goes for memory use. That's not a factor on light/heavy at all. If it uses a lot of memory but does not impact your computer use noticeably then it's a light product.

 

Sadly, a lot of people don't understand that, and worry too much about RAM usage.

 

Re Windows Defender: I've only noticed an impact on system performance when opening a folder full of exe files. Solution? Add folder to exclusions.

 

Speaking of exclusions, is there a limit to how many can be set within WD? I am setting up a new 2016 server at work. After adding in all my exclusions, let's just say that the GUI went south in a big way.

 

I can't say for sure - I only have four folders excluded on my system.

 

Gotcha. Time for some Google searches.