High CPU usage during antivirus scans

Motherboard ASUS ROG Extreme 970 CPU QuadCore Intel Core i7 Black Edition
CPU QuadCore Intel Core i7 Black Edition, 3400 MHz
GPU EVGA GeForce GTX 550 Memory SK
Memory SK hynix HMT41GU6MFR8C-PB 2 x 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM

OS Windows 10 x64 Pro Build 19042.867 20H2

Whenever I run a scan using either Microsoft Defender Antivirus or Norton Security Cloud Free, my CPU usage hits 100%. Within just a few minutes, the processor temperature climbs to 55° C, forcing me to abort the scan entirely. Is this normal? The maximum rated temperature for this processor is 62° C. To be clear, when I am running Microsoft Defender Antivirus, Norton is not installed on the system. Conversely, when I use Norton, Defender is disabled.

Under standard workloads, all temperatures remain within normal parameters. Regarding potential dust buildup inside the chassis, that is certainly not the issue here.

To looks like a perfectly normal, stable setup to me. You’re fine to keep running it as is.

Since that CPU is a bit of a lightweight by today's standards, I wouldn't be surprised if you see it hitting 100% usage quite often.

If you really want to put it through its paces, you could try using OCCT. It’ll push the processor to 100% load indefinitely until you manually stop it, which should give you a clear look at how the temperatures hold up.

I ran a scan, and for a while, it looked like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/W3qKmPVc/Snap3.jpg

Sandra Walker7 said:Motherboard ASUS ROG Extreme 970 CPU QuadCore Intel Core i7 Black Edition
CPU QuadCore Intel Core i7 Black Edition, 3400 MHz
GPU EVGA GeForce GTX 550 Memory SK
Memory SK hynix HMT41GU6MFR8C-PB 2 x 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM

OS Windows 10 x64 Pro Build 19042.867 20H2

Whenever I run a scan using either Microsoft Defender Antivirus or Norton Security Cloud Free, my CPU usage hits 100%. Within just a few minutes, the processor temperature climbs to 55° C, forcing me to abort the scan entirely. Is this normal? The maximum rated temperature for this processor is 62° C. To be clear, when I am running Microsoft Defender Antivirus, Norton is not installed on the system. Conversely, when I use Norton, Defender is disabled.

Under standard workloads, all temperatures remain within normal parameters. Regarding potential dust buildup inside the chassis, that is certainly not the issue here.

Honestly? That’s pretty standard behavior for those CPUs.
I used to have an old first-gen dual-core Intel Xeon that ran on desktop boards, and I remember they had a really narrow temperature window. I think they used those basic factory coolers with heatpipes back then, and the max temp was a measly 65° C by today's standards.
During normal use, it sat around 55° C, but if I pushed it, it’d cross 60° C. I actually had two different GPUs overheat on it—one even died—but the CPU itself stayed rock solid.
The only thing it ever needed was a little regular cleaning; blow out the dust and it felt much better immediately.

Modern apps are just too heavy for these older chips. They're constantly fighting unoptimized software that hogs resources, even though it does the exact same stuff it did years ago...

Thanks. I haven't been using the stock cooler from the start; instead, I installed a better one. I can't recall the specific model at the moment.

This isn't strictly related to your question—though I suppose everything is interconnected if you think about it long enough—but I noticed you have several 32-bit applications running, including Norton Security Cloud Free. Looking at your specs above, you've got 2x8GB of RAM installed... which leads me to wonder—and I might be overstepping here—whether you're actually running a 32-bit version of Windows? That would be a bit of a waste, given the memory you have available, unless it’s just a few specific apps that haven't been updated to 64-bit yet. If you are indeed on a 64-bit system, it might be wise—perhaps even necessary—to switch over to 64-bit versions for everything,

Best,

Aaron Baker7 said:This isn't strictly related to your question—though I suppose everything is interconnected if you think about it long enough—but I noticed you have several 32-bit applications running, including Norton Security Cloud Free. Looking at your specs above, you've got 2x8GB of RAM installed... which leads me to wonder—and I might be overstepping here—whether you're actually running a 32-bit version of Windows? That would be a bit of a waste, given the memory you have available, unless it’s just a few specific apps that haven't been updated to 64-bit yet. If you are indeed on a 64-bit system, it might be wise—perhaps even necessary—to switch over to 64-bit versions for everything,

Best,

Well, he certainly put it nicely:

Sandra Walker7 said:Motherboard ASUS ROG Extreme 970 CPU QuadCore Intel Core i7 Black Edition
CPU QuadCore Intel Core i7 Black Edition, 3400 MHz
GPU EVGA GeForce GTX 550 Memory SK
Memory SK hynix HMT41GU6MFR8C-PB 2 x 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM

OS Windows 10 x64 Pro Build 19042.867 20H2

Whenever I run a scan using either Microsoft Defender Antivirus or Norton Security Cloud Free, my CPU usage hits 100%. Within just a few minutes, the processor temperature climbs to 55° C, forcing me to abort the scan entirely. Is this normal? The maximum rated temperature for this processor is 62° C. To be clear, when I am running Microsoft Defender Antivirus, Norton is not installed on the system. Conversely, when I use Norton, Defender is disabled.

Under standard workloads, all temperatures remain within normal parameters. Regarding potential dust buildup inside the chassis, that is certainly not the issue here.

What about all those 64-bit apps, though?
Seriously, though? Is this really necessary?

Look, let’s be real for a second. Some government agencies and banking apps still demand both 32-bit and 64-bit support just to function properly. And honestly? Some people are stuck using 32-bit applications simply because a 64-bit version doesn't even exist yet. The world isn't exactly a perfect place where everything works flawlessly, so why should a user be forced to obsess over being "up to date" while ignoring how things actually work on the ground?
Let’s be real, a lot of people don't have the luxury of being picky about what they run. They don't get to just decide whatever they want on a whim. In certain situations, that kind of stubbornness totally defeats the whole purpose of having a PC in the first place. Why bother even working if you're just sitting there twiddling your thumbs waiting for someone to port an app to 64-bit? Are you really going to refuse to use a perfectly functional 32-bit version just to prove a point?

Michael Jackson10 said:Well, he certainly put it nicely:

What about all those 64-bit apps, though?
Seriously, though? Is this really necessary?

Look, let’s be real for a second. Some government agencies and banking apps still demand both 32-bit and 64-bit support just to function properly. And honestly? Some people are stuck using 32-bit applications simply because a 64-bit version doesn't even exist yet. The world isn't exactly a perfect place where everything works flawlessly, so why should a user be forced to obsess over being "up to date" while ignoring how things actually work on the ground?
Let’s be real, a lot of people don't have the luxury of being picky about what they run. They don't get to just decide whatever they want on a whim. In certain situations, that kind of stubbornness totally defeats the whole purpose of having a PC in the first place. Why bother even working if you're just sitting there twiddling your thumbs waiting for someone to port an app to 64-bit? Are you really going to refuse to use a perfectly functional 32-bit version just to prove a point?

Well, it isn't mandatory, obviously, but if a 64-bit application exists, it’s generally better to install that rather than the 32-bit version on a 64-bit system. Primarily because the application will actually be able to utilize the available memory—which isn't the case with 32-bit, creating a sort of... bottleneck, I suppose...

But if a 64-bit version isn't available, and the app is necessary, well, of course no one is stopping them from installing the 32-bit version...

Best regards.