not really, if I hadn’t performed that benchmark, I wouldn’t have even felt it.
But what surprises me is, in the AV comparatives test listed above, it shows that Avast! is way lighter than Windows Defender, but when peforming that benchmark, I noticed the opposite because with Windows Defender the score was 4.9
Very strange, although in all honesty, I feel the system is snappier when Avast is installed VS Windows Defender
I submitted a support request maybe I can help them troubleshoot the cause of this and help others
I must say I can’t imagine how Avast can affect a pure-CPU benchmark. Disk access, network traffic… OK, could be to some extent; but CPU?
Could be some unrelated background operation (say populating of some caches) - which should disappear soon.
as i said, these are only scan engines so you cant realy compare with your home AV and all the extra they have
If your home AV block the URL where on of those files reside then it has saved you
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware ( MBAM ) does not target scripted malware files. That means MBAM will not target; JS, JSE, PY, .HTML, HTA, VBS, VBE, WSF, .CLASS, SWF, SQL, BAT, CMD, PDF, PHP, etc.
It also does not target documents such as; PDF, DOC, DOCx, XLS, XLSx, PPT, PPS, ODF, RTF, etc.
It also does not target media files; MP3, WMV, JPG, GIF, etc.
MBAM specifically targets binaries that start with the first two characters being; MZ
They can be; EXE, CPL, SYS, DLL, SCR and OCX. Any of these files types can be renamed to be anything such as; TXT, JPG, CMD and BAT and they will still be targeted just as long as the binary starts with ‘MZ’.
Not listed is fileinfectors (real virus) that Malwarebytes also dont target
so if tested with all file types, statistic for Malwarebytes should be much lower as it dont target lots of files at that AV will target
also it could totally change the result for avast vs ESET, as we know avast is one of the best at detecting infected websites. There are numerous examples here in the forum that avast is the first one to detect infected websites and confirmed by Sucuri website scanner
The OP wanted to switch from Avast! to NOD32 and Eddy advice him that “You are also switching to less security” which is not quite true.
There is no point to bring MBAM in this topic.
I agree with you that “If your home AV block the URL where on of those files reside then it has saved you” ; however if the AV would miss the URL , it’s engine should detect the malware on access or on execution.
I am more confident in an AV with high detection rate than in one with good URL blocking (which most of the time will introduce a lot of FP)
I used both Avast! and NOD32 in the past and I prefer NOD32 versus Avast! ; the only reason: Avast! seems to be bloated , invasive and is trying to do things way beyond its initial purpose.
It was an example used to explain those statistics
I used both Avast! and NOD32 in the past and I prefer NOD32 versus Avast! ; the only reason: Avast! seems to be bloated , invasive and is trying to do things way beyond its initial purpose.
There are lots of users here that have used avast for years and never been infected, you have your reasons, others have other reasons, freedom of choise