AV-Comparatives release new performance test.

You're looking at the wrong test demoneye, the test is from October, believe me, it's there.


Cheers

 

Based on personal experience, I'd say Norton 2009 and Eset are equal in performance. Going from Eset, to Avira and then to Norton 2009, I feel Norton 2009 is the best performing AV all around. It's just amazing how light it is on your system.

 

Yes Norton 2009 consumes very little ram but my system doesnt fell it "light" , it can use few ram but i fell a degree of system perfomance ( New Instalation Windows Xp Sp3 , all patchs , no av before ) In the other hand Kaspersky antivirus 2009 * famous to slowdown some systems * consumes more ram but i dont fell any slowdown nothing i have to say ( boot , copy/delete/move operations , surf the net , shutdown ) very impressive in my system. So i reached the conclusion that it doesnt matter if the program uses 10 mb or 100 mb , it has to use the ram and cpu in a optimized way ... Norton "speedy light" in my pc doesnt work

Norton hates my pc and vice versa

 

Many *key* antivirus apps are excluded from AV-C's tests -- such as DrWeb, Ikarus, F-Prot, Trend Micro, Twister, Sophos, etc. Thus, I regard these tests as having small utility when it comes to making selection decisions, whether for home use or larger networks.

Hopefully there will some day be an independent, not-for-profit testing organization.

 

ESET wonz or locate in first place in every test they made....thats sweet

 

ESET is known to be a light application, so that is not suprising at all.

 

You are correct but what is the deal of testing performance on good to very good computer configurations where the impact isn't that noticeable. Because you have plenty of RAM.

 

AV-Comparatives is a non-profit organization. The fees charged to vendors are used to pay for its past and current expenses. If you read the methodology pdf on the site you will see that.

Oh yeah, Sophos has been tested since the beginning of 2008 (Have you even looked at one test from av-c this year?), Dr. Web and F-Prot don't want to be tested, Trend Micro has a result from AV-Comparatives earlier this year if you check Protect Star, a single product test of Ikarus was also done earlier in the year, and Twister's detection is probably not good enough.

 

I quite agree,but considering the time and effort involved with thoroughly testing each product I'm not sure it'll ever happen.Having said that AV-Comparitives is certainly better than most.

 

Please tell me where. All I see is the latest report is from August.

What am I missing?

 

Click on 'Comparatives' on the left margin of the page.
The 'Performance Test' for October 2008 is 3/4 of the page down in
PDF format.

 

I am running NIS 2009 in Vista Home Premium and I don't see any performance hit at all. And I have it set to max on all modules with the advanced settings also to max.

 

And I'm running NAV 2009 under Vista Home Premium and also don't see any performance hit. Expect for a FP (bloodhound.mbr) with advanced heuristics at max. Probably the hidden acer partition.

 

Funny, I run Avira and Avast and both run lightly on my PCs, maybe because one is a quad core and one dual quad core but said and done, I would rather sacrifice some CPU cycles and memory in Windows than get infected, in case I want to run truly light, there is always Linux to use.

 

totally agree, Avira is as light as a feather.

 

Found it. Thank you.

 

Cant see the point of this test. The speed of an AV does not matter much to me - AND - I have found speed is affectd frequently by combinations of software running on a system - so an AV may run light on one system, but slow on another, drpending on what else is active.

 

Wow!Shoot me in the head,please!I have never read a post like your's before.Lol!

 

While I think this is a good start, I wonder why they didn't test AV's effect on the browser. As important as the browser has become, I feel this test is incomplete until they also include how security software affects the browser's speed.

 

go avira :}

 

Good point, I would have liked to see the impact of webshield on browsing speed, I find the Avast Webshield to be the lightest of all, nothing surprising as they were the early pioneers at it, Avira is also good but sometimes some image heavy pages as well as java pages tend to slow down a bit, NOD is fine as well.

 

I'm using FS IS 2009 and I don't see all the resource usage and impact that the test shows to us.
Since 2007 version F-Secure isn't too slow.
Actually it's like Kaspersky, Avira and other AV... Maybe in computer with poor configuration it's more evident.

 

Here: Edit - let's respect the website owner's desires, no direct links to content - Blue



Congratulation's ESET

Regards

 

Doing this is not permitted. You can only provide a link to the main page of av-comparatives.org.

 

It is neither illegal nor immoral nor fattening to directly link. It is just contrary to AV-Comp's *wishes*.