AV-TEST - Endurance Test: Does antivirus software slow down PCs?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by SweX, Apr 23, 2015.

  1. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
  2. Brandonn2010

    Brandonn2010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Posts:
    1,849
    So once again it shows Kaspersky and Bitdefender having the least impact on systems, despite many users showing the contrary. Not surprised with 360 IS coming in 3rd though.
     
  3. simmersK00L

    simmersK00L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Posts:
    118
    Location:
    USA
    I've only used a few av on the list, but I find eset nod32v8 fast on my xp and that's also with running Outpost Firewall Pro 9.1. No noticeable slowdowns :) I did try Bullguard maybe a couple years ago, and it was an intolerable slowdown. I have trend 2015 on newer high end notebook, and that seems fast, and is near the top on the list. a lot of apples and oranges, different versions over different timeframes. user experience is what counts. Best (better) protection is important, but if it's too slow, I will not use it. I'm looking into UTM.
     
  4. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    4,222
    Most products seem to have a small impact which is certainly an important improvement from the situation 7 years ago (even though most computers nowadays have at least 4GB of RAM). I'm still convinced that these results may vary with different computers having different configurations and potentially conflicting software, therefore only a trial can determine how light an AV can be on a particular machine.
     
  5. Rompin Raider

    Rompin Raider Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,228
    Location:
    North Texas
    Thanks SweX...interesting.
     
  6. cobrafirefly

    cobrafirefly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Posts:
    68
    This, exactly. I never understand how these testers come up with the winners. The whole thing seems real 'paid for' and I know from experience that Kaspersky slows me down and Eset doesn't. I don't care about RAM usage, (16GB) and tried Webroot for a bit and that used like 30MB, but made intolerable delays in program installations and I had to get rid of it.
     
  7. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,078
    As it seems it's copying files procedure that made difference between AVs:
    and
    That explains bad results for ESET to me.
     
  8. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    4,097
    http://www.av-test.org/en/news/news...e-test-does-antivirus-software-slow-down-pcs/

    Test Methodology and Critics

    Typical objections by critics against the way results were obtained are the influences by the hardware used, by the software such as Windows or by access to the Internet.

    The point of criticism concerning hardware is rendered moot based on the above-described procedure of the test PC selection under "Test Configuration". The reference scores are re-validated after each test on each PC.

    With respect to Windows, background tasks could influence system behavior. That is why the testers deactivated all the tasks that can be shut down. In the event that an outlier does occur in a test step, this is statistically balanced out based on 20- to 40-fold repetition of the step.

    The third point of criticism pertains to the Internet access in the test when visiting websites. On the one hand, the speed may depend on the requested server and the routing, and on the other, ad banners or images may modify the websites. The test is completed with the help of a 500 megabit line, and it runs over several days and at different times. This minimizes any possible negative effects. The findings also demonstrate that the slowing-down effect caused by security software does not occur sporadically, but is rather constant for all websites tested.


    ;)
     
  9. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    5,245
    I also agree with the result for 360. I haven't used Kaspersky for a long time, but when I last tested Bitdefender - just 6 months ago, it caused a very noticable slowdown on the fairly slow laptop I installed it on.

    I think they should have conducted the tests using a variety of different CPUs to get a more accurate result, considering how much the performance of antiviruses can vary so much from computer to computer. They used a processor in the computers they used for testing which is (according to benchmarks) 5 1/2 times faster than processor in the computer I was using till recently, and 2 1/2 times faster than the one in my current computer. Using a slower computer gives a very good indication of the system impact of an antivirus. My previous laptop, despite its slow processor ran quite fast with no real time security software installed, but with antivirus software installed there was often an immediate very noticable slowdown. Bitdefender is a very good example of this. But, many users here have found it to be very light. So realistically, I think there is a real need to use a variety of processors in the computers for such tests.
     
  10. zerotox

    zerotox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Posts:
    417
    Again the bad science fiction screenplay by AV-test in the performance category. Probably they think that by constantly repeating something it will become true.
     
  11. RJK3

    RJK3 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Posts:
    855
    Agreed with roger_m. I used to test antivirus suites on a spare netbook, which I felt gave me a better sense of how heavy each one was.

    Still, I don't see the need for an AV currently.
     
  12. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    4,953
    Location:
    USA
    Surprisingly Kaspersky has become really light over the past year. I used Kaspersky Security Suite for about a month on one of my machines this year, and it ran really well. Even Bitdefender which has been known for being heavy is running light on the system now. I have not tried Bitdefender for myself in a long time, but according to the test it has made major improvements in performance.

    It's surprising how Eset has not been doing very well lately in the performance category. Eset has always been known for it's light footprint on the system until maybe the last couple of years. There is a bug that Eset has not been able to pinpoint that is really affecting Eset's performance. I think the Eset bug only affects the web filtering so it should not affect most categories. I think Swex will know more about the bug than myself so maybe he can correct me if i'm wrong. I just hope Eset's next Security Suite makes some of the changes I have been requesting. If not I could see myself possibly switching AV's, and I have been using Eset since 2003.

    Norton's good results were no surprise. Norton has been light for about the past 4 years on the machines I installed it on. I think Norton is a good AV for users that don't know much about security. It's an install, and forget AV. Hell, I even liked it the last time I used it. I just liked Eset better for my own use.
     
  13. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    :thumb:

    -ESET has been the lightest on my systems.
    -Norton, light enough, too.
    -Kaspersky and Bitdefender have been slowing my systems down.
     
  14. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Hey CET, Sorry, I have no new info about the issue that affect ESS. I believe ESET is investigating the problem but they are still not sure why it only affect some users and not all.

    I think a users have a 100mb+ connection would probably "feel" the difference easier compared to a user having a slower 10mb connection, as then you are used of having a high speed connection and may be more sensitive to any speed slowdowns.

    Yes afaik, for those that are affected it mostly affects browsing speed and file download speed that dropped quite a lot for some users. So local copying and opening of files etc... on the computer as in some of the test should not be affected in any way by this issue. I noted that all vendors (including ESET) got 1.0 on "downloading files" so I am not sure what to make of it, maybe their test system wasn't affected by it.

    What I don't understand is why/how ESET came out as #1 in the performance test by AV-C last year, but always get bad performance results by Av-test. If the results would be terrible in tests by both orgz then we had something to go by, but it's not, the difference can be as day and night sometimes. They are both tests and probably not performed in the exact same way on the same hardware, that's all we can say I guess. In any case, like you I hope they will be able to pinpoint it down ASAP so no user will have problems with this anymore.
     
  15. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Did they specify if Qihoo was testing with the extra AV engines enabled or disabled?
     
  16. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
  17. clocks

    clocks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,559
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2015
  18. MADx

    MADx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Posts:
    34
    Location:
    United States
    Bitdefender IS ran heavy on my PC, and slowed it down. I'm running Kaspersky IS now, and it runs very light. I guess it depends on what features you turn on or off in a antivirus product that may impact a PC performance.
     
  19. greyowl

    greyowl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Posts:
    85
    I think they disabled QVM engine which is heuristic to reduce false positives.
    I have been told that you can't disable QVM in the AV that goes out to the public. Is this correct?
     
  20. tetsuo55

    tetsuo55 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Posts:
    126
    It is interesting to see how the graph in this test can be inverted and then show my personal experiences with these products.
     
  21. daman1

    daman1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Posts:
    770
    Location:
    MICHIGAN,USA
    No problems at all with BD AV 2015 on both my Pc's, don't even know it's there.
     
  22. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    another worthless test ALL/ANY running processes will slow a pc(any pc)and that will vary with not just spec of pc but other installed apps,there is no way of giving a generalisation of the affect any av product will have on my or anybodies pc,too many variables
     
  23. AndyTHL

    AndyTHL Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Posts:
    12
    Hello,
    i have set up now maximum settings in Eset Smart Security... But seems Internet, and Pc is faster running as with defender.
    With Eset standard Settings, i'm sure, my computer is faster , as Windows8 in standard configuration.

    I cannot believe the av-test results, i mean it was no. 1 at av comparative system impact test in end of last year.
     
  24. AndyTHL

    AndyTHL Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Posts:
    12
    Who has at home 500MBit line? That explain's why bd is the best at av test.

    They are changing the conditions so long, until Bd wins :p
     
  25. StillBorn

    StillBorn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2014
    Posts:
    162
    Is this to say that the more programs running the more usage of the CPU and hence potential performance knocks or the likelihood of incompatibilities? Sorry, amigo. I like rants as much as the next guy/gal as long as it at least includes a sense of coherency. ;)
     
Loading...