Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Inside Out, Nov 20, 2013.
Some interesting results. I never felt any slowdown using Nod and yet it did not get top score.
It would be interesting to see Webroot tested.
The differences between all of them are so small that in my opinion it is not s deciding factor in choosing a suite. Effectiveness and stability are much greater factors.
Also, an AV is tested on either old/used computers (but how much so?), or completely fresh ones, which is the case in this one (far from real world conditions thus irrelevant).
Example - Default Settings.
Kaspersky at default settings is lighter but could have less detections because of it. Where as GDATA a company that comes with its highest settings already enabled gets a slower score but has higher base detection because of it.
I could install any AV without any of its shields and get top spot, but what good is that? Same principle applies to all.
Totally agree. The Avira Guard for example is scanning by file extension while other Real-time Monitors in this test are scanning All files!
For program execution, all files are scanned by the Avira file guard.
Don't AVC and AVT largely use the default settings for classic detection and dynamic tests anyway? It's not just performance tests. Despite being the OP, I agree that this test is highly inconclusive, but mostly for different reasons.
I am dissapointed that I cannot see if Emsisoft improved in regards to the last test. This time the full internet security suite was tested, the last time it was EAM 7 only. Hence I am unable to comprehend if the performance improved file guard in EAM 8.1 would have led to a better result. Now I am just seeing a worse result than last time and I don't know how much the addition of Online Armor factors into that.
A lot, my friend...a lot!
They can't possibly test each setting so they stick to what most of people "shockingly" use; out of the box settings.
Indeed, unneeded complications for subjective preferences that won't necessarily solve anything or even reach an agreement.
Thanks for sharing.
Curiously I'm seeing fewer comments than expected for this kind of tests.
It seems that people still can't get over his shock after the latest av-c reviews
An interesting read. It's not going to make me change my antivirus, since I don't use any at the moment. But, since for me performance is the single most important attribute for me when choosing an AV, I like to read tests like these.
Same here, I like to read them but it won't change my opinion about a product.
I have always had the perception of Avira V14 being the lightest Avira in my experience, I also mentioned in some of my posts that Avira felt even lighter than Windows Defender on Windows 8, well these assertions are now validated by this test.
Thanks for mentioning that. I had Intelligente Dateiauswahl (no idea what that is in English) which didn't seem to have any impact on performance that I could notice, but I'm trying out file extensions now. Which setting do you think is best?
As a suggestion, maybe the people who do the help file could add that in about scanning on execution.
performance comes first for power users who know abt security stuff. Still with WSA
Then again, Avira '14 has no in-house firewall.
Stefan your signature is incorrect. When Chuck Norris should be into security he only needed to know the hashes of the executable's on his PC to whitelist them to make an Anti Virus redundant (assumed he has implemented a deny by default policy).
As an amateur I have high expectations and respect to professionals like you, please don't spoil that image/imago with a flawed humorous signature.
Thanks for the update!
Yes, agree that effectiveness and stability should be top priorities, but still lightness is a very good factor to consider. The differences might be indeed small.
I couldn't believe that avast is lighter than eset.
I have used both.
Using ESET,I had turned of HIPS,Mailguard,and also webguard(ESET blocks lots of Iranian forums cause they present crack...
Using Avast,I deactivated browser protection,mail shield and system update service
Regarding Ram & CPU usage,Avast uses less resources.but about the effect on systems's performance,I ve seen no differences....they are both light
Separate names with a comma.