Is G Data AVK really superior?

[Astech]

Well I am a Kaspersky man myself and in no way a fan of multiple engines, I was looking at G data Anti Virus Kit, it used to use engines from BitDefender and Kaspersky and now days BitDefender and Avast, adding more engines didn't prove to add extra detection. When you take a look at the testing results from http://www.av-comparatives.org/, http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02 or http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2 you can see that there is not "much" difference between AVK and the other Antivirus programs (singe engine ones), so what is the point then?

[lodore]

Hey,
i agree a decent single engine is very close is the dual engine solutions. dual engines could potentially use double the resourses for what less that 1percent detection? is someone really that paranoid to warrent the extra resourses needed?

[Astech]

Well I guess some people are, otherwise they wouldn't make these products. In my opinion multiple engines are not worth the sacrifices in terms of system resources.

[subset]

G DATA seems to be a German phenomenon.

True to the motto - I want to feel my security software, the more the better.
AVKWCtl.exe about 100 MB in memory, AVKProxy.exe about 160 MB, that's ridiculous, even with a double-scan-engine.

But... G DATA does a lot of magazine advertising in Germany and wins nearly all these magazine tests and all tests are done by German AV-Test.org. ::)

Even a dedicated German gamer magazine presents G DATA as their test winner and as the best solution for a gaming PC. :P

Of course, their detection rate is great, but unless you have a dual core and a lot of memory (to waste), it makes your PC completely unusable and even if you have, it's far beyond reason to use such a performance/memory hog.

However, their international recognition can't be that great, their localized websites contain not even half of informations and links their German site offers.

As said, it seems to be a German phenomenon, pushed by local magazines and testers.

Cheers

[markcc]

Well I have been using it for about 8 months now. My computer is far from top of the line, its a P4 630 with 3gigs of ddr2 ram. It does use a fair amount of ram when surfing, less when the browser is closed. I feel no system slowdowns with this a/v. The web scanner does slow it up some (like most others do) but it is not that bad. If I disable the web scanner I have zero slowdown. System responsiveness is good & it feels no heavier that any other a/v.

I have tried many other a/v's & this one runs better than most on my system. The key seems to be the amount of ram. The more ram, the better. If you have the amount of ram I do, you will not notice any slowdowns.

[tiagozt]

I don't think so.

When GDATA used Kaspersky engine it was very good, but actually I really don't believe that Avast + BitDefender can get good results, despite some tests. What I see when I use the new GDATA for testing is very different.

And a lot of resource usage too...

[CubonesCastle]

-{ Quote: "I don't think so.

When GDATA used Kaspersky engine it was very good, but actually I really don't believe that Avast + BitDefender can get good results, despite some tests. What I see when I use the new GDATA for testing is very different.

And a lot of resource usage too..." }-

I'n my personal oppinion adding bitdefender was a huge mistake, a very huge mistake.

[Astech]

Well to be honest I visited a German website where they were talking how G Data is the best one, they were showing the test results and so on, that is why I wanted to see your opinion because, detection rate is one thing, but stability and recourse usage is also very important. G Data may be a little more then the average users really need.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "G DATA seems to be a German phenomenon.

However, their international recognition can't be that great, their localized websites contain not even half of informations and links their German site offers.

As said, it seems to be a German phenomenon, pushed by local magazines and testers." }-
G DATA's main territory is indeed Germany, well-organised advertisment campaigns and the friendly help provided by e.g. Germans largest computermagazine ComputerBild deliver G DATA numerous German customers.

[Astech]

This is true, I visit Greman security sites and forums very often, on most of them you can't find a single bad word about this product and the marketing is phenomenal.

[Ford Prefect]

At first, the combination of BD-engine and AVAST-engine is more effective than the old combination.

Of course memory consumption can be optimized (and surely it will :lurking: ), but when your systems RAM >= 1GB you won´t have to suffer:)

At least the great detection rate isn´t a (german) phenomenon - it´s reall.
Looking at absolute numbers you don´t have to be paranoid to be exalted.

Use the trial-version and you will see.

Best regards
Ford

[Astech]

-{ Quote: "At first, the combination of BD-engine and AVAST-engine is more effective than the old combination.

Of course memory consumption can be optimized (and surely it will :lurking: ), but when your systems RAM >= 1GB you won´t have to suffer:)

At least the great detection rate isn´t a (german) phenomenon - it´s reall.
Looking at absolute numbers you don´t have to be paranoid to be exalted.

Use the trial-version and you will see.

Best regards
Ford" }-

Don't misunderstand me, AVK is ,when you look at the numbers, a great product and nobody can doubt that. The point that I'm trying to make here is that AVK even with 2 engines is not all that much better then it's rivals (Avira, Kaspersky, Avast...), when you look at the tests there is very little difference between Avast and AVK, so I hope that you get my point here;)

[Ford Prefect]

I think I got your point, but here´s my point:
av x detection rate: 97,6%
av y detection rate: 99,7%
av z detection rate: 99,9%
Little differences?

Probability that your system is infected when it was attacked by 100 independent "bad guys":
protected by x: 91,19%
protected by y: 29,95%
protected by z: 09,52%

Still little differences? Please correct me if my calculation is wrong ;D

[C.S.J]

there is alot more to an AV product that detection rates,

ie. how are Gdatas drivers?

[Ford Prefect]

You are right, but detection rate is this threads topic.

I didn´t hear about vulnerabilities in G DATA´s current drivers.
Especially the wfp drivers "feel" fine.

[TechOutsider]

Link to Eng. trial please?

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Link to Eng. trial please?" }-
v.2009 (http://www.ultimateinternetsecurity.com/2009/downloads.html)

[Astech]

-{ Quote: "I think I got your point, but here´s my point:
av x detection rate: 97,6%
av y detection rate: 99,7%
av z detection rate: 99,9%
Little differences?

Probability that your system is infected when it was attacked by 100 independent "bad guys":
protected by x: 91,19%
protected by y: 29,95%
protected by z: 09,52%

Still little differences? Please correct me if my calculation is wrong ;D" }-

I wasn't talking about AV x,y or z, I was talking about Avira, Kaspersky and Avast. Your calculations are OK, but once again if we take the three products that I mentioned, there is no big difference. We are talking about less then 1% , it would be surprising is AVK couldn't secure a lead. Keep in mind that AVK didn't win in all tests;)

[Ford Prefect]

I´m sure there exists a comparative with results, so that you can substitute x by kaspersky, y by avira and z by G DATA ;D
(e.g. take a look at http://www.rokop-security.de/index.php?s=&showtopic=16855&view=findpost&p=260911 - latest results for avira and kaspersky are not so good as in my example)

But even if we don´t talk about concrete vendors - once again my point:
"little" differences (minor than 1%) in detection rate can have big consequences.

cu,
Ford

[bsod]

-{ Quote: "I´m sure there exists a comparative with results, so that you can substitute x by kaspersky, y by avira and z by G DATA ;D
(e.g. take a look at http://www.rokop-security.de/index.php?s=&showtopic=16855&view=findpost&p=260911 - latest results for avira and kaspersky are not so good as in my example)

But even if we don´t talk about concrete vendors - once again my point:
"little" differences (minor than 1%) in detection rate can have big consequences.

cu,
Ford" }-

*agree with Ford Prefect*

[Astech]

-{ Quote: "I´m sure there exists a comparative with results, so that you can substitute x by kaspersky, y by avira and z by G DATA ;D
(e.g. take a look at http://www.rokop-security.de/index.php?s=&showtopic=16855&view=findpost&p=260911 - latest results for avira and kaspersky are not so good as in my example)

But even if we don´t talk about concrete vendors - once again my point:
"little" differences (minor than 1%) in detection rate can have big consequences.

cu,
Ford" }-

Yes and I agree, but in real life that doesn't mean much, you can't expect somebody to be infected with hundreds of thousands of viruses, so the extra guns are not really necessary. I agree that AVK has better detection rate then the others, but like I said before with 2 engines that is not really a surprise.
Maybe they should test the programs with multiple engines (and signatures) separately, it is not fair to test 2 programs against one, but who's complaining???

[dawgg]

-{ Quote: "I agree that AVK has better detection rate then the others, but like I said before with 2 engines that is not really a surprise.
Maybe they should test the programs with multiple engines (and signatures) separately, it is not fair to test 2 programs against one, but who's complaining???" }-
An AV having 2 engines is not justification for treating it differently from single-engine AVs. If it detects more, good, its users will be better protected. Thats what most people want to see with tests/comparisons, how effective their AVs are at detecting in comparison to other AVs.

Having 2 engines doesnt mean its in a different class or league, its still an AV and the tests are simply showing how well AVs detect in comparison to others - what most users and companies want to know.

Cant shoot it because it incorporates different technologies or has merged other companies solutions, if it detects more, good for it, regardless of what technology its using.

[Astech]

-{ Quote: "An AV having 2 engines is not justification for treating it differently from single-engine AVs. If it detects more, good, its users will be better protected. Thats what most people want to see with tests/comparisons, how effective their AVs are at detecting in comparison to other AVs.

Having 2 engines doesnt mean its in a different class or league, its still an AV and the tests are simply showing how well AVs detect in comparison to others - what most users and companies want to know.

Cant shoot it because it incorporates different technologies or has merged other companies solutions, if it detects more, good for it, regardless of what technology its using." }-

That is what I meant when I said "who's complaining";)

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Still little differences? Please correct me if my calculation is wrong ;D" }-Your calculation is fine, although there's a minor typo (protected by y should read 25,95%), but I would take issue with how realistic is a 100 challenges in the real world. That is a lot of malware encountered in casual usage.

I'm sure one can surf with that type of result, but my own impression is that you really have to work at it.

In my world, genuine challenges number 1 or 2 every couple of years. This is really probably more typical, and in that case the differences on a yearly basis are quite minor.

The calculation is useful for those who court exposure via their surfing style, and that could form the basis for selection of a top tier detection engine, although I'd also tend to point to alternative technologies that are useful approaches as well.

Blue

[Ford Prefect]

Wow - nice that you ´ve found my typo!
I agree - probably most users are not confronted with so many attacks.

However - detection rate is one of the most important criteria to me.

Regards,
Ford

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Wow - nice that you ´ve found my typo!
I agree - probably most users are not confronted with so many attacks.

However - detection rate is one of the most important criteria to me.

Regards,
Ford" }-

hehe, thought ud be using Avira if that wer the case ;D

[Astech]

It would be also nice to see them remove all the viruses that they detect, high detection rate is very important, but so is the removing of active viruses:)

[dawgg]

-{ Quote: "It would be also nice to see them remove all the viruses that they detect, high detection rate is very important, but so is the removing of active viruses:)" }-
No need for removal if it doesn't have a chance to infect you in the first place ;)
...And I personally rather have an AV which keeps telling me I'm infected every time I boot up than not telling me anything at all because it cant detect it.

...But on the other hand, if the AV doesn't fully remove it although it gives the impression it has, then there's a big problem.

[adiels]

Well if you think its heavy on resources..its NOT. Atleast AVK 2009 is not, its much lighter than many single engine AV's. Only thing I don't like is the manual scan is a bit slow, other than that a great product. And I am not german :-)

[Blackcat]

Has support for non-German users improved? It used to be very poor.

[subset]

-{ Quote: "Well if you think its heavy on resources..its NOT. Atleast AVK 2009 is not, its much lighter than many single engine AV's." }-
Much lighter...

Disk space before and after the installation and update of G Data AV.

205892

Memory usage after a few minutes browsing.

205893

Yes indeed, it certainly is very light. :P

Cheers

[markcc]

All that is important to me is how does it feel on your computer? My memory usage is about what you show, it does not effect the way the computer runs! I'm running XP with 3 gig of ram & feel no slowdowns at all. I don't care how much ram it uses! After you quit surfing a few minutes the AVK Proxy memory usage will fall to a few MB's.

I have tried F-Secure & that ran like crap on my machine, high memory usage & made the computer slow to a crawl. I have tried Avira & that uses far less memory than GData, however system responsiveness was no different than GData. Opening the GUI on Avira was slow & took a few seconds to open which does not happen in GData.

I'm very happy with this A/V & will renew it when it's time

[Ford Prefect]

@subset
used diskspace and installer size are really important indicators for "lightness".
More space is needed e.g. for the BooCD image and the ability do modify installation subsequently.

RAM consumption will be optimized - but I agree with markcc:
Even with the actual consumption I don´t notice negative effects.

regards,
Ford

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "All that is important to me is how does it feel on your computer? My memory usage is about what you show, it does not effect the way the computer runs! I'm running XP with 3 gig of ram & feel no slowdowns at all. I don't care how much ram it uses! After you quit surfing a few minutes the AVK Proxy memory usage will fall to a few MB's.

I have tried F-Secure & that ran like crap on my machine, high memory usage & made the computer slow to a crawl. I have tried Avira & that uses far less memory than GData, however system responsiveness was no different than GData. Opening the GUI on Avira was slow & took a few seconds to open which does not happen in GData.

I'm very happy with this A/V & will renew it when it's time" }-

the reason that happens is bcause the people at Avira chose not to have the GUI running in memory 24/7, that way they can limit the memory usage even more, the GUI only loads into memory wen u open the GUI and wen u close it, the process closes as well.

[markcc]

Thanks for the GUI answer Firzen771. I would think the amount of ram needed to keep the gui active would be min. It makes the program feel slow when you open the gui. I have not seen that with any other a/v. With the amount of ram on systems today & the low cost of adding more, IMHO they should use what it takes to make the program responsive.

The bottom line on my system is this: This a/v runs very well on my system, has good detection rates, has a great gui & has keep me clean. I run SAS & Malwarebytes on demand from time to time & it has never found a single thing - ever. Good enough reason for me to keep using it;D

[subset]

-{ Quote: "@subset
used diskspace and installer size are really important indicators for "lightness".
" }-
Nope, according to wiki they are just indicators for bloatware or elephantware.
A Program uses larger amounts of system resources (disk space, memory) than similar programs without any benefits for its users.
If you don't care or respectively like bloatware or elephantware, of course that's not my problem.

I have tested the Avira and G Data Suites, KIS and NIS on a P4 2.66, 768 RAM, XP testbox.
Guess which suite was the only one, which slowed down this testbox to a crawl?
Exactly... G Data was the only suite which made this old PC completely unusable.

And what I always read from guys to let their bloatware shine is this if... then... thingy.
If you have a recent Dual Core, then it doesn’t slow down your system.
If you have 3 GB of RAM, then it doesn’t slow down your system.
If etc. etc.

Cheers

[markcc]

Subset

I understand what you are saying! My system is NOT top of the line. A P4 630 single core processor with 3 GIG of DDR2 memory, that's it! No system slowdown! Avira runs NO DIFFERENT on my system nor does any other A/V I have tested. You can take that for what it's worth.

[Ford Prefect]

@subset

if an app offers the features I mentioned, it should be clear that it needs more diskspace than apps which don´t offer these features.

Ok - when you think your testbox and test set is representative for most users than you surely be right...

[steve1955]

I think Blue more or less summed it up:-if you get infected is more down to you and your surfing habits than which AV you use and how many engines it uses:-a bit of common sense is far more effective than adding an extra av engine in keeping your PC clean!If your an idiot you could probably get infected if you used an av containig half a dozen different technologies from various vendors if one existed

[GES/POR]

-{ Quote: "an av containig half a dozen different technologies from various vendors if one existed" }-

Trustport?

[steve1955]

-{ Quote: "Trustport?" }-
that's no good:-its only got 5 lol

[SourMilk]

Personally, I don't think multiple engines are as important as heuristics and signatures. An antivirus with an unpacker, virtual simulation, and a good updated signature database will be as effective as most other antiviruses including multi-engine ones. If, however, the single engined antivirus is lacking in some respect or it is not possible for it to check all malware types, a multi-engine antivirus would be better in this respect.

Descarte said, "I think, therefore I am."
SourMilk says, "I think, therefore I think I am."

SourMilk out

[Astech]

With 5 engines TrustPort brakes all the records:o

[progress]

Yesterday G Data was really superior, bye bye Windows :thumb:

~~ link to VT results removed per forum policy (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=180057) ~~

[GES/POR]

-{ Quote: "Yesterday G Data was really superior, bye bye Windows :thumb:

~~ link to VT results removed per forum policy (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=180057) ~~" }-
LOL ;D Actually u mean BD :thumbd:

[progress]

Yes, and BD is part of G Data :ouch:

[markcc]

As ance said, Bitdefender is one of the engines GData uses along with Avast, so what! Other av's companies use other av engines in their products. So it looks like if you had Bitdefender or GData you would have stopped this virus!

[subset]

-{ Quote: "So it looks like if you had Bitdefender or GData you would have stopped this virus!" }-
Unfortunately this "virus" stopped and deleted by Bitdefender and GData was the system file Winlogon.exe :ouch:

Heise News about this err... bad accident (Google translation)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Bitdefender-und-GData-loeschen-Winlogon-Systemdatei--/meldung/132540

Cheers

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "Unfortunately this "virus" stopped and deleted by Bitdefender and GData was the system file Winlogon.exe :ouch: " }-

Well, you can't deny that this is a definitive solution that can stop ALL windows viruses! :argh: :wacko:

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Well, you can't deny that this is a definitive solution that can stop ALL windows viruses! :argh: :wacko:" }-

LMAO ;D i suppose that is tru :P

[progress]

-{ Quote: "Well, you can't deny that this is a definitive solution that can stop ALL windows viruses! :argh: :wacko:" }-

Hahaha, G Data is really superior :thumb:

[GES/POR]

Some vendors really take it to far ;D

[atlantis]

GDATA AVK, probably the best antivirus on this planet !!
:P

[s4u]

Well I have been made curious so I thought I'd test the security suite on one of my machines and I'm impressed a lot. besides very easy and clean removal of malware this thing is really fast on my machine.
Total processes are 2.556 kb. besides that Browsing is amazingly fast as well.

[Eliot]

Does running it on a dual or quad core relieve the load I experience on my P4? Im sure it would, I just want to clarify for when I rebuild my pc.

[markcc]

I also have a P4. It's a 630 (3Gig) with 3 Gig of memory. GData does not tax my processor! If you don't have enough ram it will run slow. With my set-up this A/V does not slow my system anymore that any other a/v I''ve used

[Eliot]

Must be a newer version than the one I ran. I have 2GB of memory in here with a 3Ghz P4 w/HT and running on RAID 0 using a pair of Raptors. Win 7 even runs nice on here. The last time I ran GData, it was like old school norton!;D

All jokes aside, if anyone wanted to post a link to the trial of the latest, I'll give it a spin. Im not actually running anything real time except Malwarebytes atm.:shifty:

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "All jokes aside, if anyone wanted to post a link to the trial of the latest, I'll give it a spin. Im not actually running anything real time except Malwarebytes atm.:shifty:" }-
Post #17 (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1392068&postcount=17)

[Eliot]

Thank you Macstorm.

225MB. holy big files batman! dl'n installing and will report back :thumb:

[Eliot]

It will not install on Windows 7 :(

Tried all the compatible stuff, run as admin, etc. everything. no joy. :thumbd:

[Macstorm]

YW Eliot :)

Don't be fooled by the installer size.
The AV runs much smoother than previous versions, all the new 2009 products were optimized for dual and multi-core systems.
However, I just didn't like the fact they ditched the kav engine in favor of bitdefender :-\

[edit] Just saw you tried to install it on Win 7 :D

[Eliot]

Yep. I plan to upgrade this thing to a Quad Core with 4GB with faster raid. I might just run it then.(if I can get it installed on win7)

[Astech]

I gave it a try and I must say that it is not what I expected, it is not light, but it can run smoothly on most up to date systems. I'm also one of those who is asking why they changed Kaspersky's engine for BitDefender, just curious::)

[steve1955]

-{ Quote: "I gave it a try and I must say that it is not what I expected, it is not light, but it can run smoothly on most up to date systems. I'm also one of those who is asking why they changed Kaspersky's engine for BitDefender, just curious::)" }-

Its probably more to do with how much they pay for it than any performance issue:-after all its all down to profit with a commercial product,probably pay a kind of royalty to the company providing the engine on every copy sold,if Bit Defender charges less and performs as well or almost as well then G Data make more for themselves rather than whoever makes the engine they use under licence