MWB 3.0x processor utilization...

[dont_touch_my_buffer]

Since I allow MWB scheduled scan to run once a month, I was curious after seeing some posts about high CPU utilization, if it's really that high.

TL;DR: Yes, it is...

Here's the CPU utilization for the recommended "Threat Scan", started manually:

Yes, that's a quad-core relatively recent CPU, coupled with 16GB memory and SSD drives. 

Since the system has Vipre AV as well, let's test its CPU utilization for a manual "Quick Scan", equivalent to MWB's "Threat Scan":

:

That's roughly 30% CPU utilization on the same system. 

I don't have numbers to back it up, too lazy to get them, but the chances are that there are substantial differences between the real-time protection of MWB and Vipre as well. My guess would be that Vipre's numbers would be lower.  

On the other hand MWB does more than Vipre AV, hence the reason I still have it despite the issues. Some of the performance differences are justifiable for this reason, but 200% increase seems excessive for manual scan... 

[ZVAXX]

1 hour ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

.... the recommended "Threat Scan", started manually ... MWB's "Threat Scan" ...

I do not find the posts just yet ... but here and here are some thoughts about this serious problem (ID: 5 ff.)

My suggestion is completion of the setting possibilities in "user-defined scan" by a point "resource utilization" or distribution.

Edited January 28, 2017 by ZVAXX

[dont_touch_my_buffer]

While the resource utilization is high for manual scanning, I could still use my computer without issues. This is due to the fact that the manual scanning CPU utilization throttles itself down to 50%, or further, from the 98%, if and when other programs are started during the manual scan.

Vipre AV limits itself to ~30% CPU utilization for the manual scan, regardless of the activity on the system. It's two different ways utilizing CPU cycles and by no means that Malwarebytes is the only one that adjust CPU cycles for manual scan, depending on end user's interaction with the system. Emsisoft Anti-Malware does the same and I am certain there are others.

 

[ZVAXX]

1 hour ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

While the resource utilization is high for manual scanning, I could still use my computer without issues. This is due to the fact that the manual scanning CPU utilization throttles itself down to 50%, or further, from the 98%, if and when other programs are started during the manual scan.

... It's two different ways utilizing CPU cycles and by no means that Malwarebytes is the only one that adjust CPU cycles for manual scan, depending on end user's interaction with the system.

On my system (W7-x64, fast SSD system partition, ivy i5 NB-CPU) all that does not apply. The scan of partition C (without bigger data amount) lasts 20 minutes, while the system is overloaded with a total of 95-100% up to the end of the scan, programs are not executable, the CPU temperature rises on 82 degrees and the blower flies me almost around the ears. Unfortunately, that's fact. Under these circumstances, I do not currently run a system or another SSD-partition scan to avoid damaging the hardware.

Edited January 29, 2017 by ZVAXX

[dont_touch_my_buffer]

I don't know what to tell you... My other system is a W7-x64 with SDD drives and i5 quad-CPU behaves the same as my W8.1-x64 in this thread. In another word, the scan does not lock up the system, finishes rather quick and runs other programs just fine.

While SSDs nowadays are much more durable than they've been in the past, I scheduled a monthly scan instead of running it daily. In my view, if real-time protection works, there isn't much need for daily scanning...

[ZVAXX]

Well, an i5 notebook CPU with 2 cores and 4 threaths has not grown to the job apparently, and i3 etc. immediately already not at all. Other users have already reported about it (as it behaves with substantially more efficient desktop CPUs, I cannot judge this, one will still see...)

I do not trust the real time protection to 100%, since I have downloaded files uncomplained one which were recognised in a next manual Scan as injurious. Since then I scan on occasion the suitable SSD disk drive.

But in any case, I would not want that secondary software blocks my work. With an improved performance this has nothing to do.