AV and IS Benchmark Testing

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by midway40, Dec 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    I was just checking a Symantec blog where they commissioned Passmark to do benchmarking tests on Norton's '08 AV and IS solutions plus other competitors as well (Eset was not involved for some reason). These tests were performed on "low-end" XP computers with 256MB RAM.

    The resulting report is here for those interested (report is in PDF format).

    EDIT: The reason for NOD32's (and others) absence:

     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  2. Sjoeii

    Sjoeii Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Posts:
    1,240
    Location:
    52?18'51.59"N + 4?56'32.13"O
    Funny test. Not really important, but it is funny
     
  3. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i found it really interesting, cheers midway.

    the ram usage got my attention,

    even the highest ram-user for AV was only 71.5mb, not really too terrible.

    Norton AV 2008 = 10mb ram, impressive.
    Bitdefender AV 11 = 2.9mb ram, even more so. :D

    figures really, as Bitdefenders suite is definatly the lighest and fastest regarding pc performance than any other that ive tried.

    sooo under-rated.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  4. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    I assume that the RAM figures aren't those appearing on Task Manager. If this is the case, the benchmark is useless.
     
  5. i_g

    i_g Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Posts:
    133
    I'm afraid the numbers are those appearing on Task Manager. Therefore yes, they are useless.
     
  6. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    how do you know this?

    they certainly dont match my task manager numbers.

    eg.

    my f-secure shows between 35-43mb, they say its 82mb.
     
  7. i_g

    i_g Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Posts:
    133
    The numbers may depend on the particular system. Even on one system - if you wait a few minutes or run some other programs, you may get completely different numbers (at least for some AVs) than before. So you can't expect you get the same numbers as on your system.
    (Besides, they have little to do with real memory consumption, but I'd repeat myself on that.)
     
  8. berng

    berng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    246
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Which proves the numbers are not that useful.

    Systems and the programs that are run in them are different. Hence the variation. It doesn't help anyone when they are told its 82 mb and then its radically different.
     
  9. AndreyKa

    AndreyKa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Posts:
    93
    Location:
    Russia
    You mistook.
     
  10. midway40

    midway40 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    1,257
    Location:
    SW MS, USA
    I was going by this in the blog:

     
  11. Dwarden

    Dwarden Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Posts:
    176
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    what really catch my eye is that Avast! got best rating in boot time and scan time ...

    anyway interesting report to info mix :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.