Skip to main content

Do Antivirus Suites Impact Your PC's Performance?

Application Installation

On McAfee’s advice, we opted to test application installation times with the expanded .msi executable for LibreOffice 3.4.3 running under Windows PowerShell with Administrator rights. PowerShell’s UI looks much like a command prompt, and our command reports back with the exact time spent on file installation. Note that the /qn argument suppresses all of the usual installation pop-ups for which you inevitably click the Next button.

The standout surprise here is GFI Vipre Antivirus. We expected all application installs to be slower with AV running than on our clean configuration since AV products all run in the background, monitor file unpacking, and add resource overhead. Honestly, we’re stumped as to how GFI achieves this, but the company does stake much of its product marketing on speed. We suspect that subsequent image re-installations and test averaging might have yielded numbers closer to that of the clean image, and what we’re seeing might be a statistical outlier. Still, even at parity with our clean time, GFI blows away the rest of the field on app installation performance.

Perhaps not surprisingly, AVG and Microsoft deliver our next best times. Compared to Kaspersky, Microsoft, and Symantec, our two free AV products are considerably simpler and more pared down in their feature breadth. Perhaps an abundance of analysis is leading to installation paralysis? Certainly, installing an office suite to a 5400 RPM hard drive in under three minutes is nothing to sneeze at, but the other way to look at this is that Symantec added 60% to our application time. If you tend to do a lot of program loading, this could be a concern.

  • dogman_1234
    Regardless what anyone says: Using McAfee is like using a Glad garbage bag as a condom.
    Reply
  • Martell77
    I've been using Trend Micros AV since y2k and haven't had a reason to switch. Because of the systems my clients have I never recommend Norton or McAfee and if they have it I always recemmend they switch. Its truely amazing how the performance of their systems increases after getting rid of those AVs, especially Norton.
    Reply
  • soccerdocks
    On the scanning time page there is an error in the second graph. It also says first run.

    Also, the timing of this article was excellent. I had just been doing some research about what anti-virus software I should switch to, mainly based on performance, but I guess I just got all the information I needed.
    Reply
  • compton
    Some of the results seem mysterious, like all the times the no-AV configuration scored lower in many tests than it should be faster in. Is it possible that using the Wildfire as the system drive instead of the platter would have eliminated this behavior? In general, I hope there is a second part to this that does include SSD runs. I would think any advantage AV products have vs. the no-AV config would evaporate.

    I stopped using AV products on my personal systems back in 2003. Norton back then was god-awful on a Pentium 4 systems, seemingly crushing the life out of a system. Even with a first generation WD Raptor 36GB my P4 2.6 would choke not only with Norton, but also McAfee. I might not use AV software, but I do put it on my family members' systems when it doesn't kill performance. In that respect these modern solutions seem much better.
    Reply
  • ChiefTexas_82
    On my Pentium D I have to run McAfee when I'm gone for a good while or sleeping as my computer slows to a crawl during the scan. Even bringing up the menus to stop the scan take way too long.
    Reply
  • darkstar845
    Why didn't they test this on a computer with average specs? The 8gb ram and very fast CPU might be offsetting the impact that the AVs put on the computer.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Thanks for this. I remember the bad old days when AV could make software builds take several times longer.
    Reply
  • cdhollan
    While my comment is completely tangential, but my inner chemical engineer can't resist making a small correction in what is otherwise a great article:

    >>Apparently, this is somewhat like saying you can boil water at 230 degrees Fahrenheit instead of 260 degrees. As long as the water is at 212 degrees or higher, no one really cares.
    Reply
  • rottingsheep
    installing vipre speeds up your computer?
    i think something is wrong with your numbers.
    Reply
  • Amazed ESET is not being tested considering it sells itself on its performance over the competition while maintaining the same levels of protection.....
    Reply