Av-comparatives May Performance and Real world test

Your link says "AV x, Impact score % =
http://i.imgur.com/904jrMw.png

Also in test report (PDF, page 11)
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/avc_per_201405_en.pdf
there is no explanation how
i.e. the 188.8 "total points" are transformed to 1.2 (what?) "Impact score".

----------------------------

That's exactly what I did.

 

yes about a week ago

 

quite interesting, what's your computer specs if I may ask ?

 

Windows Defender and light in the same sentence? w00t? That thing is idiotically heavy even on my high end system.

 

I think this test doesn't provide a complete image, it doesn't test boot delay, nor browser complex website with a lot image, wallpapers etc. open up folders with a lot of files, insert USB with a lot of files on it, scan speed, etc.

 

max reachable points - total points = impact score

here it shows points and not %s in the graph. which browser do you use (and which link?)

 

Considering the total, any impact of 10 or less would probably not be noticeable to the average user. A user who is not testing performance.

 

Thank you for the clarification.
--------------

IE11
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2014&month=5&sort=1

 

@anon: thnaks, a webdesigner will have a look why it shows a % when the link is created. The %s are not shown if the chart is accessed by http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

 

Already noticed.
Thanks anyway.

 

Nope, I was only using BD Total Security. It also gives me 10- 15 seconds black screen with the BD 2015 Beta, slightly less but still a little annoying at times. Not to worry though as on my desktop I have gone to KIS now.

 

Agree!!

 

True..

For me I disable all of the USB scanning crap, because on-access should cover that anyway. ESET for example, I disable much of that sort of thing because I find it slows down my activities, and is redundant. I also disable most start/boot/shutdown scans because I feel they are redundant, and only contribute to slowing the machine down. When that is done, ESET is probably the lightest AV possible, absolutely no system impact I can discern with it.

 

Eset is only light on default settings. if u tweek it to max protection than its just heavy. u get some framelags while gaming. Avast with a costum install is quit lighter.

 

Show me how to make Avast super lite!

 

well this system is a i7 @ 4.1g on water, 16gb ram, ssd + 2 1tb hdd's, ati graphics etc. FAR from a slow system, my other current test system is up near the same type of specs but with 32gb ram.

 

I always find Bit Defender and Kaspersky a bit heavy.

I just tested KAV2014 again, it spikes CPU, but the real annoyance is it 'constantly' is using Drive I/O.. Like 2-6mb/s almost continously. What's up with that? To me a good AV should be 'quiet' the majority of the time.. That is no CPU spikes, no memory spikes, and no I/O spikes for random dumb reasons on an idle system. Almost all of the AV's out there do this, even Webroot spikes Explorer.EXE constantly to 'hide' its own processes as looking very light.

ESET is one of the few that doesn't cause hassles, or spike this or that. It's quiet most of the time.

 

Maybe, but ESET has optimal defaut settings, you dont need to change anything to get maximum protection.

Smart Optimization + Live Grid really makes a difference in v7 version, I dont fell any impact at all.

 

Fully agreed!

 

well then it's strange to hear...

 

Just install "Realtime Shield" nothing more. its quit lighter than eset, ram and response from system. testen on some systems.

 

I usually recommend to enable the detection of PUA's, unfortunately not all users knows the difference between an FP and a PUA detection. Other than that the defaults are fine, and Advanced Heuristics is enabled only for "on-execution" by default wich is enough IMO.

Edit: FWIW, there used to be a message that showed up when one enabled advanced heuristics for the realtime scanner saying something like "enabling AH for the realtime scanner may have an impact on the system performance"...but in V7 maybe even in V6 that message is no longer shown. So if one have enable it and feels that it could have a little impact then one can just disable it again of course.

 

I have a config file for ESET that makes it absolutely lite as a feather, even on old slow machines, yet seems to not compromise security. I've tested this configuration with a few penetration tests, and roughly a dozen threats, including some zero-day, and it performed file.. To me Eset is the least hassle, lightest, and less buggy of any AV products other than F-Secure, but it has better PUA/PUP detection than F-Secure so I choose it.

 

Well my own tests tell another story (laptop running Intel dual-core @1.46GHz and Win8.1Pro32-bit 2gbRAM): Performance wise, from best to worse, 1.Windows Defender 4.5, 2.Avira Pro(beta), 3. Kaspersky AV2014, 4.G-Data AV2015, 5.F-Secure IS.TP114 beta, 6.Dr.Web SecuritySpace.
At least for the ones on my signature.

 

How is it in terms of disk read/write?