NOD32 Performance Degradation Testing

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by msanto, Sep 11, 2004.

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

    msanto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    214
    One reason I tried NOD32 was because I heard how little it impacted system performance. Another was the Virus Bulletin Reports and also the problems I was having with McAfee Tech Support and SP2 (since resolved).

    I ran PCMark04 on a 1.13 Ghz P3 laptop w/ 384 MB of RAM.

    Now, NOD32 only used about 16 MB of RAM will McAfee uses about 33.

    However, when testing PCMark04, I get the following results:

    No AV: 1632
    NOD32 (maximized settings per Blackspear's thread): 1602
    McAfee: 1632

    This actually matches the results I read here (from PC Magazine) which said McAfee produced 0% degradation during their testing (I didn't believe it until I tested it myself!).

    http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/PC_cillin_Internet_Security_2004/4505-3536_16-30588581-5.html?tag=top

    I must say I'm disappointed in NOD32 and impressed by McAfee. Yes, I understand the ActiveX problem w/ McAfee, but still ... has anyone else done performance degradation testing w/ NOD32?
     
  2. Nirvy

    Nirvy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    Your complaining because NOD32 slows your system down by 0.98% during scans?

    Did you actually notice the loss of that 0.98% of speed? I mean 32 PC2004 points is nothing, i flucuate about +/- 200 points every time i run it.

    Mcafee misses a crap load of viruses, we ahve it on 1700 PC's at work, each week we have dosens get through which Mcafeee cannot detect or delete.

    If you want that 0.98% speed increase, go use Mcafee, if you want a good AV and your memory back, use NOD32.

    Next time im playing doom 3 though, when i see my FPS stuck at 45, ill consider turning NOD off to get 45.001 FPS :p

    Technicall they is no such thing as 0% performance degradation, every time your press a key or move a mouse your CPU jumps to life, so unless you tend to sit their not touching your computer, dont beleive everything you read.
     
  3. Howard

    Howard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Posts:
    313
    Location:
    Wales, UK
  4. msanto

    msanto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    214
    Wow, that's a little touchy. I asked a simple question. Has anyone else done similar performance testing? I did not say, this is good, this is bad, this detects this, this detects that. And mostly I'm disappointed not in the degradation itself but in the amount of bugs in 2.12.2.

    Frankly, it was a simple question and certainly not deserving of such a flame. In fact, I was interesting in some other results, while you seem to be interested only in a flame.

    BTW, I ran it 3 times and got the same results +/- 10, so I'm not sure why you're fluctuating 200 points.

    Additionally, I realize there's no such thing as 0% degradation in reality. However, what is true is that the testing shows 0% MEASURABLE degradation. Since my PERSONAL testing matches PC Magazine's, I think that's evident.

    But I also asked for more results, so obviously I don't necessarily believe it. I also said I didn't believe their results could be even close to right until I took a look myself.

    Also:

    I'm not concerned with 16 MB of RAM. Esp. since that laptop is only a work laptop. My main PCs and my Alienware 51m all have 1 GB of RAM. I'm more concerned with performance.

    BTW, I would be more impressed if you could do math. 30 points out of 1632 is 1.84%. I would also be more impressed by a well-thought out post. Most of the posters who impress me on this forum say "if it works for you, good." The point of these forums, I thought, were to help people get protected against malware and viruses, not to become fanboys of a particular product.

    As I said in my initial post, I had been using McAfee, and in fact, I have never been infected, but recent events w/ SP2 and McAfee (as I said, since corrected) caused me to look elsewhere. If I was incorrect in thinking this forum was supposed to be informational rather than just a pro-NOD32 forum, I'm sorry.
     
  5. Nirvy

    Nirvy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Posts:
    25
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    1. Sorry about the math, im dyslexic and ahve problems with numbers, i mised a few up, so shoot me ;)

    2. I also have a high performing PC, hence my PC mark fluctuate around 4800-5000, which is a very small %, I also run Raid0 disks which can fluctuate slighting in the hardware card I/O with the CPU, casuing the slight fluctuation,which im sure your capable or working out.

    I under stand you wanted to ask if other saw this, but who on earth can tell a ~1% difference in Operating system speed?

    Im not Pro NOD32 at the moment im using Kaperski due to some NOD32 problems with its new IMON killing my ability to goto certain websites.

    I'll be happy to help test, if you can point out how im meant to notice my machine being ~1% slower? ;)

    If you can tell a noticable speed difference with NOD, then stay with Mcafee.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.