desktop pc,s

Discussion in 'hardware' started by Rita, Aug 23, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rita

    Rita Infrequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Posts:
    6,863
    Location:
    wilds of wv
    Hello
    Not sure where to post this,but was just wandering if an AMD processor is slower than an intel.I have a new pc which has amd,and it seems like it is so much slower than my last with intel.I dont like it at all--got it cause it was cheaper lol--thanks
     
  2. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,238
    The speed varies greatly between different models of CPU, rather than just being a difference between AMD/Intel CPU. Also there are other factors to consider too. Maybe your old computer had more RAM. As well, some antiviruses can cause very noticable slowdowns on some computers, so your choice of antivirus could have an impact too.

    Can you post the following:
    The version of Windows you are running
    What model processor you have, and how much RAM is installed
    What antivirus you are using

    You can get the processor and RAM details by going to System Properties. If you don't know how to go there, Google system properties along with your operating system, e.g. system properties windows 7, to find directions.
     
  3. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    That's like asking, "is Ford is slower than Chevy?" It all depends on the model.

    As Roger notes, we would need the specifics.

    You might use Speccy (from the makers of CCleaner) to learn all about your computer and publish your specs here.
    1. In Speccy, click File, and then click Publish Snapshot.
    2. In the Publish Snapshot dialog box, click Yes to enable Speccy to proceed.
    3. Speccy creates the profile of your system specs and displays a link in a second Publish Snapshot window. Click Copy to Clipboard.
    4. Paste that link into your reply here.
    Note that Speccy does not collect or publish any personal information.
     
  4. Rita

    Rita Infrequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Posts:
    6,863
    Location:
    wilds of wv
    Thanks--Windows 10--processor AMD-E1-1500
    6.00 GB ram 5.72 GB usable
    Mcafee antivirus
     
  5. Rita

    Rita Infrequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Posts:
    6,863
    Location:
    wilds of wv
  6. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Well, you sure don't need McAfee, W10 has Windows Defender built in (but currently disabled because McAfee is running) and if you keep Windows updated, and don't participate in risky behavior like visiting illegal porn or gambling sites, illegal filesharing via Torrents or P2P sites, or are "click happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, popups, or attachments, Windows Defender is just fine. But regardless your antimalware program of choice, you should always have a secondary scanner on hand to make sure your primary, or you didn't let something slip by. I recommend Malwarebytes Antimalware for that. McAfee is a very effective security program, but tends to be a considerable resource hog compared to Windows Defender.

    This AMD E-1500 has only two cores and runs at only 1.48GHz. That is not very quick. I don't know what Intel you had before but I suspect it was quicker.
     
  7. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,238
    As Bill siad, your processor is not is not very fast, and it's highly likely that the processor in your last computer was faster. You've got 6GB of RAM which should be more than enough, so that won't be slowing down your computer. I would reommend uninstalling McAfee, as it's possible it is slowing down your computer. Because your computer has slower processor, some antivirus software will cause very noticable slowdowns. Once uninstalled, Windows Defender will automaitcally activate, so you will still be protected. I agree with Bill that if you use some care then Windows Defender will be all you need. However, I tend to find that Windows Defender can cause slowdowns if not run a really fast computer. But, even so, quite possibly your computer will run faster with it compared to McAfee, and you won't know until you try it.

    It looks like you are not running the latest Anniversary Update build of Windows 10. I highly recommend upgrading to it, as it should make your computer run a little bit faster. You won't lost any of your apps of data when you upgrade. Here is the link to upgrade. However, before upgrading I recommend you uninstall McAfee.

    Although your processor is not very fast, If you uninstall McAfee and upgrade to Anniversary Update, your computer should run well.
     
  8. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    The problem is, "bad guys". Because of bad guys, we users must bog down our systems with extensive security applications that must set deep hooks into the hearts of our systems. It does not matter which anti-malware solution you pick, they all MUST monitor and protect many aspects of the entire operating system including (but definitely not limited to) active memory, networking, and disk access. This all takes up a lot of system resources that take away performance from the things we want to do. So all security program will bog down our systems to one degree or another. But with Windows Defender built into Windows already and from the ground up, it tends to bog down systems less - especially those systems with limited resources.

    My issue with McAfee (and Norton) is they, in their attempt to stand apart from the rest of the crowd, are HUGE, in part because they have so many other features most users just don't need. I also don't like the fact they are expensive to start and have recurring fees. The free anti-malware solutions also tend to have resource hogging features most users don't need, plus they often nag their users to "upgrade" (pay through the nose) for their more bloated versions.

    Also, McAfee, Norton, Avira, AVG, Kaspersky, and all the others (except Microsoft Windows Defender) have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to rid the world of malware! If there were no malware, they would all go out of business. They need and thrive on malware. IMO, these companies are, in effect, in bed with the bad guys! :(

    Microsoft, on the other hand, has all the incentive in the world to rid the world of malware - so they will stop being blamed for the actions of the bad guys, and the failure of McAfee, Norton and the others who failed to prevent malware in the first place - noting how they whined to Congress and the EU years ago it was their job when Microsoft wanted to put antivirus code in XP. They cried "monopoly" and that Microsoft was trying to rule the world. They were, but not the point. Congress and the EU heard "monopoly" and tuned out everything else, ordering Microsoft to remove all AV code from XP. It all went downhill after that.

    Windows Defender (WD) is not like the others. It is a "basic" solution that is designed to thwart today's current threats. Microsoft does not design WD to score top in unrealistic, synthetic lab tests like the others do because it is not competing for your $$$.

    Drivers don't need a monstrous, gas guzzling Abrams Tank to be safe. We just a "basic" car that is properly maintained to current safety standards and most importantly, we must drive defensively. That's what Windows Defender lets us do with our computers.

    Note how Congress and the EU (and the commercial antimalware software makers) are being mum about Microsoft including antimalware code in W8 and now W10? That's because Congress and the EU know they messed up, and McAfee, Norton and others know they are sitting on a big cash cow (very much like the greedy pharmaceutical companies) and don't want us consumers giving them the evil eye.
     
  9. Rita

    Rita Infrequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Posts:
    6,863
    Location:
    wilds of wv
    Thank you both for replying.I may just uninstall Mcafee.I knew it took a lot of room.I didnt know anything about windows defender,so am glad to know it's a good program.You all have been most helpful--thanks again
     
  10. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I had McAfee on my old underpowered laptop. I think McAfee was decent enough, but it was huge! I uninstalled it and swapped it for the then Panda Cloud (later I ran MSE) and it drastically improved its performance.
     
  11. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    For Rita, MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials) was improved and renamed to Windows Defender in W8 and W10.
     
  12. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,238
    My exeperience with running Windows Defender on a lot of computers, is that almost always it will cause noticable slowdowns at times on slower computers due to high CPU use, but can be really light with a faster CPU such as an i5. Of course many antiviruses are very heavy these days, but I can name a few that have an absolutle minimum systen impact on slower computers.
     
  13. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Was Defender actually an improvement over MSE? Don't they use the same signature updates?
     
  14. Adric

    Adric Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Posts:
    795
    Yes, I had to disable WD on my older Compaq nc6320 with W10. You could feel and see WD eating the CPU when you got to the desktop after every boot. MS may have an incentive to rid the world of malware, but I don't see that incentive in making WD work without you noticing it mucking around in the background. What AVs were you talking about that have minimum impact on slower computers?
     
  15. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,238
    @Adric I just sent you a message about light antiviruses.
     
  16. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Yes it was an improvement. MSE is a stand-alone program that needed to be downloaded and installed. WD in W8/W10 is integrated into Windows and is actively working very early during the boot process. This is especially critical during installations. WD is also faster with manual scans.

    Signature updates don't mean anything. Signature/definition files are just basically a database of malware (or patterns) to look for.

    It should also be noted that there are two totally different Windows Defender programs and one should NOT be confused with the other. The older Windows Defender is an anti-spyware only program. It runs on W7 and older Windows. And it often did bog systems down.

    The new Windows Defender is totally different and is a full anti-malware program. It runs on Windows 8 and newer Windows.
    :( Why? Forums are places for "open" discussions where everyone should have an opportunity to learn and share.
     
  17. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Well, technically, they do mean something. Otherwise those awfully clever chaps at Panda wouldn't automatically update mine every 30 mins.
     
  18. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Sorry, I was not clear. Of course they are extremely important.

    I was responding to your comment where you seemed to be implying because MSE and WD use the same signature files, that was somehow bad. It is not. MBAM Free and MBAM Pro use the same files. So does Panda Free and Panda Advanced. Fact is, within the security community, signatures of known malware are widely shared and published. Microsoft pushes out new signature files at least once a day, often more frequently. But comparing suspicious code to a signature database is only one way anti-malware programs protect out systems.
     
  19. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I wasn't implying that MSE and WD using the same signature files was somehow bad in some way. That is inference on your part. AFAIK the MS signature updates apply to both MSE and WD. I also believe MS updates its signatures every eight hours, which is essentially three times a day. Either way, virtually all modern AV's utilise a signature recognition base to detect malware (even if they have other measures). I admit I don't know the exact differences between MSE and WD, although I was perfectly content to run MSE for quite a while. Eventually I had to switch back to Panda though. I never believed the FUD about MSE anyway.
     
  20. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,238
    I agree with you 100% on that Bill. However, I didn't want this turning into a product A versus product B discussion which usually ends up in threads benig closed here.

    Anyway here is a list of some antiviruses which I have found to be extremely light, with barely noticable systen impact even on slower PCs:
    360 Total Security/Total Security Essential
    Tencent PC Manager
    IObit Malware Fighter Pro
    Webroot SecureAnywhere
    AVG
    Norton products

    While I have seen the system impact from an antivirus vary greatly from one computer to the next, I believe the above products should have very little system impact on just about any computer. I have not considered RAM usage, as this only impacts performance when you run low on RAM.
     
  21. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I never believe 1/2 the FUD ever said about MS or any MS product! Most is just MS bashing by MS and Bill Gates haters, bloggers, or wannabe journalists with exaggerated and sensationalized headlines seeking attention. The fact is, Microsoft is a great company that makes great products - and no, they don't pull my strings nor do I benefit in any way, even as a MVP, for saying so. Their biggest problem is, IMO, is misguided marketing people who have too much influence over how new programs and policies are shoved down consumer's throats!
    Norton products? o_O We clearly have different experiences there. While Norton/Symantec products have lightened up a bit in recent years, I would not for a minute call them "extremely light". Not to mention, many, including me, would call them extremely overpriced and there are still nightmare stories from users wishing to uninstall them.

    The problem is different product behave differently on different computers. So users probably should try out several and stick with the one they like - just keep it updated.
     
  22. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I think MS's biggest problem was drastically misunderstanding a rapidly changing market.
     
  23. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    2,867
    Location:
    Australia
    Bill, when was the last time you tried Norton?

    It is pricey, I'll give you that.
     
  24. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,238
    While perhaps not as quite as light as the other products I listed, I do find Norton Security to be one of the lightest antiviruses there is. However, even just a few years ago, when Norton products were supposed to be lighter than they had been, I found them to cause noticable slowdowns.
    That's excellent advice. I would always recommend that if someone is going to buy an antivirus, that they try the trial version first to make sure it's not slowing down thier PC, or causing other issues.
     
  25. Bill_Bright

    Bill_Bright Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    2,265
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    On my own systems, it has been years. But I have a little shop and systems come in with Norton because it was pre-installed at the factory as a free trial version. And then the user stuck with it after the trial because of all the intimidating and fear mongering warning users get before the trial period ends warning them how vulnerable they WILL be if they don't pay up! :mad: Okay, yeah, I may be a bit biased there, but not that far from totally truthful.

    In any event, on many of those systems, just removing Norton (or McAfee) and enabling WD often showed a significant performance gain - especially with network tasks.

    To be sure, I am NOT saying Norton or McAfee are bad security programs. They typically are excellent at keeping systems secure. My problem with these and ALL the other security "suites" is the developers pile a bunch of junk in there most users just don't need to make their product stand out from the crowd. Our security apps should sit quietly and discreetly out of the way and basically we should never see them. And WD is that way.

    Note too, because WD is updated via Windows Update, there is no additional updater program that needs to be running (or learned) too. And that is nice as well.

    I note right now on this W10 64-bit Pro system, WD is using 0% of my CPU and 53.1MB of memory. MBAM Premium, on the other hand, is using .1% CPU and 188.2MB of memory. Telling MBAM to scan and the 3 MBAM processes together are eating up 14% CPU and just under 400MB of memory. Telling Windows Defender to scan, CPU use jumped to 27% but memory is only at 106MB. I also note the WD scan completed in about 1/2 the time of MBAM. In either scan, I noticed no performance hits, and Pandora didn't skip a beat.

    Speaking of MBAM, I say regardless your security program of choice, everyone should have a second scanner for supplemental use just to ensure the user (ALWAYS the weakest link in security) or the primary security program did not let anything slip by. And I recommend MBAM for that. SUPERAntiSpyware is also a popular alternative scanner.

    Since W7 came out in 2009, I've been using MSE, then switched to WD for W8 and then W10. And I have been using MBAM as my secondary scanner. MBAM Premium on this machine, and MBAM Free on my 5 other systems. Other than a few "wanted" PUPs (potentially unwanted programs) MBAM has found nothing proving (to me anyway) MSE and WD do their jobs well.

    I don't agree with that. They saw long ago the decline of the PC and the rapid migration to handheld devices. It was for that reason, they implemented that horrible "metro" style start screen in Windows 8 and hid the familiar W7 desktop. They did this because the "marketing" weenies wanted to force users :ouch: into becoming familiar with the layout so next time they went shopping for a new cell phone, they would pick up a Windows Phone and say, "Hey, I already know how to use this!" and then buy a new Windows phone. Had they not tried to shove that W8 user interface on us, W8 might have succeeded. But it was a miserable failure - even though technically, it was/is a fine piece of programming.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.