AntiVir - Do higher heuristics affect performance?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Quitch, Apr 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Quitch

    Quitch Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Posts:
    94
    Quite simply, is the High setting enabling additional checks and pattern routines (or whatever) and thus using more CPU while being more thorough, or is it casting the net wider and thus catching more but also risking more FPs, while using no additional CPU time because of it?
     
  2. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Based on my limited (one month) experience with Avira Premium with settings max'd out I have noted no performance hit at all. Even Web Guard has had little if any impact. Coupled with my licensed Online Armor Firewall I feel pretty darn secure...:thumb: :D
     
  3. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    realy im not using avira right now

    but i hear that it give many FP if the herustic in high
     
  4. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    FPs with Avira are rare. At one time it was an issue but not anymore.
     
  5. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I love your Avatar. Wonder if I can make one with 25 different products. Would solve a lot of issues for me.;)
     
  6. solcroft

    solcroft Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,639
    From what I can see, Avira's heuristics mostly do not involve emulators – for the most part, they work by inspecting the file/code structure and packer detection – and thus are very light on CPU cycles. The FP problem may or may not affect you. If it doesn't, there's really nothing stopping you from using high heuristics.
     
  7. deanmartin

    deanmartin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    231
    Location:
    USA/KY
    That's pretty good, I like that :D
     
  8. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    when your setting up Nod(2.7),your warned that using Advanced Heuristics will affect performance,so I wouls say yes they do in most cases
     
  9. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    Got all settings on HIGH and I've never felt a slowdown,especially with version 8,which is quicker then 7 was for me :thumb:
     
  10. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    Any part of any AV product which is set to scan more intensely has got to cause a slowdown,might not be too noticable to us mere humans,but it will be measurable,and file type dependent
     
  11. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    High settings do not hinder Aviras stellar detection or speed.
     
  12. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    must affect it in some way,otherwise why have other settings besides "high"probably not really discernible to most users,but would still be measurable and like I have said would depend on type of files involved,if your computer was full of exe's and various types of archives I think you would notice the impact on scan speeds,still be fast though!
     
  13. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    For Real-time there is no difference in speed. The only downside is the very rare FP. I don't see a difference in scanning speeds, leaving it on high. This is with version 8. With version 7, the high heuristics slowed down scanning only, I believe. I've tried all the freebies out there and I really don't think anything compares to Avira Antivir Personal.

    Al
     
  14. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,827
    Location:
    USA
    I have it set to High right now, and I don't get any FPs.
     
  15. deanmartin

    deanmartin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Posts:
    231
    Location:
    USA/KY
    I've had Avira for about 3 1/2 month's now and with scan, guard, and webguard all set on high. The only detection's it's had is from the webguard (6or7) so far. With webguard set to Auto deny access. also to my knowledge there's now slowdown here between (default) Medium setting and High. I must say it's one of my top 3 AVs for detection and performance.
     
  16. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    Just being pedantic(!):-all the guys who say there is no performance hit whatsoever are saying that running their PC without AntiVir installed at all is same as running it with it installed and which is then same as running it with all protection turned up to the max,sorry but you never get anything for nothing,the higher you set protection with any product(not just AntiVir)the more it is going to affect performance:-just because it may be almost unoticable doesn't meean it doesn't happen!
     
  17. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    For Real-time there is no noticable difference in speed. The only downside is the very rare FP. I don't see a noticeable difference in scanning speeds, leaving it on high. This is with version 8. With version 7, the high heuristics slowed down scanning only, I believe. I've tried all the freebies out there and I really don't think anything compares to Avira Antivir Personal.

    Al
     
  18. Quitch

    Quitch Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Posts:
    94
    I covered this in the original post. NOD32 for example clearly has two levels of heuristics, and only one is enabled for real-time because enabling both means more checks and thus more CPU use. However, if you have one set of checks with a Low to High setting this could mean enabling additional checks and thus more of a hit, or it might simply mean casting the net wider when returning the IsVirus() result and therefore is purely a matter of controlling FPs, in the same way that changing the score where your anti-spam filter blocks stuff doesn't increase resource usage it just controls how many spam Vs. legitimate mail is blocked.
     
  19. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have been an Avira user for a few years and I have always had every setting set at the max. I have had zero false positives, and version 8 is the lighest AV I have ever tested- lighter than NOD32 and Dr. Web which I also use from time to time. There is no comparison for lightness with minimal system performance degradation.
     
  20. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    avira has and never will be as light than drweb, this is something that will not be taking away from drweb :)

    ive checked everything in the past, benchmarks, cpu spikes, ide usage, folder/file operations, encoding, transfering, you name it, ive checked it, and while drweb is not #1 on everything (and no, avira isnt the one taking its place here :) ), it always give the best overall performance, by quite a mile.


    so to answer the thread, yes...... it probably will degrade performance, but probably only in the extreme slightest ways.
     
  21. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    Spoken like a true zealot. :cautious:

    To claim that Dr.Web is lighter and offers better performance than Avira by quite a mile is just as obtuse as your use of the word never.
     
  22. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    why dont you check it all for yourself, before disregarding my comments. :rolleyes:

    id hate to say, i told you so... but id be happy&willing to do so ;)

    just disregarding them, is wishful thinking maybe?
     
  23. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    Please pay special attention to the words in italics from my previous post. :rolleyes:
     
  24. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    dont worry Elite, i read all your words :)
     
  25. EliteKiller

    EliteKiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Posts:
    1,138
    Location:
    TX
    If that is the case do you truly understand the meaning of the term quite a mile and the word never? I suppose if you substituted Avira for TrustPort you'd have a leg to stand on. As it stands right now you're simply speaking like a true fanboi.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.