ESET is not really light on resources

I found that ESET is not really light in resources.I thought that ESET is equal light in resources * The memory ram usage always go high when I started to open the web browser and even worse when I open multiple tabs.Can everyone tell me the minimal requirement to install ESET?

 

from
http://www.eset.com/home/smart-security
"..
Processors Supported: Intel or AMD x86-x64
Operating Systems: Windows® 7/Vista SP2/XP SP3/2000 SP4
Memory: 45 MB
Disk Space (Downloaded): 36 MB
Disk Space (Installed): 50 MB
.."

 

There's more to performance than just RAM usage. ekrn.exe is using about 60MB of RAM right now for me, up from 40MB a few years ago. In the days of computers with several gigabytes of RAM, this extra increase and the amount itself is negligible on performance. I look at other general performance indicators, such as boot up, shut down, opening browsers and Office applications, etc.

Although I would consider ESET still fairly light, it is my observation that it has not really improved much on performance impact over the last few years, whereas other vendors * have. Hopefully future versions of ESET products will continue to maintain and improve on the balance between performance and detection.

 

To know how much ram av takes I see the total ram consumption without av and after av is installed. Though eset individual processes take about 60 mb ram the total ram usage by all applications remain less. I feel the same for MSE too. Also I/O reads and writes by the av also play a part. Finally the system should not feel heavy in daily usage

 

Personally I find Eset to be extremely light on resources, better than any other AV I have tested.

The results speak for themselves really:
http://www.eset.com/home/compare-eset-to-competition/speed

 

Several significant enhancements in terms of the speed of scanning were actually incorporated last year.

 

Eset is very light. Nothing compares.

 

Speed overhead is better than most AV's that I have run in the past and that is not just PR.

 

ESET is indeed very light in my eyes; also see the latest PassMark review, sponsored by Symantec. Norton Internet Security comes first in that test (how surprising) and ESET Smart Security second.

Also, idle RAM usage ain't really the greatest indicator of lightness. Many vendors use tricks to lower their idle RAM usage, such as hiding it in other processes, using the pagefile or using Virtual Memory.

Also, note the difference between RAM usage on idle and under full load. I think the RAM usage under full load is really low with ESET, it is hardly higher than idle. My ESET Smart Security is using 60MB in idle and 75MB under full load. Where in contrary some other vendors might jump from 15MB to 150MB.

Also, note that ESET always has the WHOLE signature database loaded into memory (which is around 32MB I think), where in contrary all the competitors do it in a different way.

Also, CPU usage and HD usage are probably more important for determining how light a product is. ESET is really light on both of them.

Also, note that performance will differ among pc's, since nobody has the same system (in terms of applications and/or services installed and/or running).

Also, the lightness you personally experience on your pc, might be different from the factual performance.

 

How much RAM is used, when the system is idle doesn't say anything about the lightness of the software.

60mb is, compared to other security solutions, nothing.
If you really want to see which program is most perfomant, try to run PCMark and you will see ESET will be as fast or even faster than the other solutions.

 

ESET is the lightest around without a doubt .
And that I have found out by NOT looking on the Memory usage,
but on the actual performace of the PC while using it. The feeling that is!

And NOD32 or ESS is the only products that doesn't rush the memory usage up to over 200MB while doing an update for example .

 

Hello,

A properly configured installation should yield no *noticeable* net slowdown in speed or performance. Out of the box, Eset is the most secure. Tweaking the configuration can have an impact, both positive and negative. The biggest numbers mentioned to this point as far as RAM used (under load and when idle) are still quite better than other vendors.

Thanks,

Matt

 

Yes Indeed.

Here the Memory usage is the same under load and when idle, wich is around 50-70MB. Usage never goes above 80MB. NEVER.

And ESET is the only vendor that has a developed a product wich has the same Load & Idle Memory usage. Wich I give them credit for.

If you find another product that has similar Load & Idle Mem usage then you're lucky.

 

I actually have been skeptic against NOD32 for the past years. But the disk I/O usage is really top-notch, and that's what matters to me, as the HDD is the bottleneck of every computer these days!

 

Indeed. You might care to try the well known Russian product if you want to see your resources hammered. Even my 80 year old father noticed within 24 hours of me switching his machine to NOD32.

 

If you tick the two blank boxes below, it'll probably affect system performance... of some pc's, like some occasional freezing and hanging . In the past I ignored the pop-up warnings and suffered the consequences. Not sure...if that's also what you've done.

 

Maybe what you said is correct but so far I don't feel any hanging or freezing with ESET..

 

Hello,

Just to verify, you are reporting your experience on the computer described in your signature, a netbook with an Intel Atom N450 CPU and 1GB or RAM, correct?

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

 

You are right.Do you think is not enough?In my opinion,I don't think is enough for ESET,right?

 

The problem you may be witnessing may not be ESET related, but the fact that you are running several antimalware applications at the same time.

I'm not having any difficulties with my HP Mini netbook I have at home.

 

I have to say that Eset Nod32 is the lightest AV I have found for my 1.8GHz 7 year old XP computer with a gig of RAM,,, I've tried others and all but NOD32 slow this old baby to a crawl when using real-time system protection.

 

1GB of RAM is more than enough for ESET, YES.

I just got 512MB and it's running just as smooth as if I would be naked without ESET.

Try to uninstall everything else in terms of Real-time Sec Soft, to see if you get an increase in performance.

 

Works great on my AMD Athlon 3000 xp w/ 1GB RAM.

 

But my MBAM is an on demand scanner not real time.Maybe the svchost.exe?

 

Hello,

I am not sure. I ran ESET Smart Security, which has a heavier footprint, on a netbook with a similar configuration to yours and did not notice any difference. The only difference, though, was this netbook had 2GB of RAM.

It could be something related to the software loaded on the netbook, though, and not the RAM.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky