RAM usage of Security Suites

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by xpsunny, Jan 26, 2009.

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

    xpsunny Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Posts:
    163
    I would like to know the total RAM usage of the following Security Suites:

    1. Norton Internet Security 2009
    2. Kaspersky Internet Security 2009
    3. ESET Smart Secuirty 3.0
    4. AVG Internet Security 8
    5. Avira Security Suite 8
     
  2. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,748
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    To avoid 1000 different answers you better try them one by one on your own machine.

    Gerard
     
  3. gaz2uk

    gaz2uk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Posts:
    2
    In my recent PCpro Magazine the RAM usage on there tests computer was:

    Norton Internet Security 2009:
    Idle - 583
    Peak - 850

    Kaspersky Internet Security 2009:
    Idle - 552
    Peak - 812

    Eset Smart Security:
    Idle - 551
    Peak - 779

    AVG Internet Security 8:
    Idle - 643
    Peak - 890

    Avira Security Suite 8:
    Idle - 617
    Peak - 912

    It also says the lower the number the better. I don't know if this will help at all but there you go.
     
  4. xpsunny

    xpsunny Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Posts:
    163
    @ gaz2uk

    Thanks buddy. :)
     
  5. Creer

    Creer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Posts:
    1,345
  6. icr

    icr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Posts:
    1,588
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Low usage doesn't actually mean fast computer
    coz Eset takes ~45MB in my task manager but compared to norton 09 eset's start up is faster than norton:shifty:
     
  7. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    That may be true, however, it is somewhat of an indicator with regards to performance. Usually, when an application is hogging memory, it means that some of its functions are not performing efficiently.
     
  8. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    Units are in KB?

    As for memory usage nowadays, anywhere from 1 to 150 mb is pretty much irrelevant; you have so much anyways ... >2gb.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. yashau

    yashau Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    151
    I have NAV Gaming Edition 2009 running right now and it uses around 4MB on idle (both processes). See thumbnail below. I use x64 Windows 7 and I think the memory usage is low because of the x64 as with most apps on it. I'm pretty sure the Internet Security version also uses the same amount of ram.

    Well for the other apps here's what I remember by memory.
    Avira free uses around 10 megs of memory.
    AVG free around 25 megs.
    Kaspersky around 20 megs.
    ESET around 45 megs.

    ESET is made in assembly and that's why I think it's faster even tho with the higher memory usage. Remember higher memory usage isn't always slower performance :)
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Smiggy

    Smiggy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    Location:
    The Angel Isle
    Currently using Comodo's D+ offering with Firewall.

    At present cpf.exe is polling 4mb whereas the eset module installed, ekrn.exe, is polling 40mb with the eset gui, egui.exe, pulling a further 2.3mb.

    That said tho since I removed NIS2009 (class product by the way) it boots faster to desktop.

    These two apps appear to have produced my fastest boot to desktop times.

    :thumb:
     
  11. Coolio10

    Coolio10 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Posts:
    1,124
    Yeah, especially kaspersky can slow down a computer even with enough ram.
     
  12. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    You can check out AV-Comparative's Performance tests. It includes most of the suites you mention.

    See:
    http://www.av-comparatives.org/

    Goto Comparative ( on the right location bar), then scroll down the list to find Performance test ( october 2008 ).

    { AV-C doesn't allow posting direct link to their pdf. Sorry !! }
     
  13. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,069
    And then to think I don't even have more than 512 MB RAM on my computer !:eek:

    On the other hand, I don't have a full security suite, but the McAfee Virusscan Plus plus Spy Sweeper usually use less than 512 MB RAM, even though more virtual memory is available .
     
  14. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    Kaspersky made my typing lag in MS Office 2007. I type something, then it appears after a couple of seconds, all jumbled up.

    NOD32 ran fairly fast and light on a old PIII. So did Avira. Considering that the pacticular computer only had 128mb of memory, both those suites should be fine for modern computer.
     
  15. InfinityAz

    InfinityAz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Posts:
    828
    Location:
    Arizona
    Here are the RAM usage of security suites from the latest and updated version of Passmark benchmarking. They listed an industry average of 51.09 MB (I'm assuming it's the average of the suites they tested). They're arranged from highest to lowest RAM usage.

    Product Name - RAM (MB)
    1. G-Data Internet Security 2009 - 117.61
    2. Panda Internet Security 2009 - 102.56
    3. AVG Internet Security 2008 - 66.46
    4. F-Secure Internet Security 2009 - 64.34
    5. McAfee Internet Security 2009 - 57.74
    6. Trend Micro VirusBuster 2009 - 52.05
    7. SourceNext Virus Security ZERO 2009 - 37.35
    8. ESET Smart Security 2008 - 33.38
    9. Trend Micro Internet Security 2009 - 32.09
    10. Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 - 22.38
    11. ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 2009 - 20.19
    12. Norton Internet Security 2009 - 6.92
     
  16. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    Have you taken in consideration multiple scan engines?

    GData = Kaspersky + Avast

    F-Secure?

    SourceNext is ...?
     
  17. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    isnt GDATA Bitdefender + Avast?
     
  18. TechOutsider

    TechOutsider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    549
    Think this thread has been solved.
     
  19. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
    OK. I'm wondering how RAM really translates into speed, or lack of it.
    I think it was post #15 by InfinityAz that listed a dozen security suites.
    Of those twelve, I have used five plus the Avira Suite and in my experience GDATA was, for all intents and purposes, every bit as fast as Kaspersky and definitely faster than F-Secure.

    On my Dell E510 with an Intel 630 Prescott 3.0 ghz processor and 2.5 gb of RAM, Norton 2009 and the Avira were the fastest without a doubt.

    F-Secure crashed my system twice and even worse was the PC Tools Security Suite; total system lock-up on reboot nearly every time.
    It must have astronomical resource consumption.
     
  20. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    SourceNext is a single engine product. Basically a rebranded version of K7 Total Security, very successful in Japan.
     
  21. faterider

    faterider Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Posts:
    64
    Doesn't translate much really. The question for RAM is adequate when you have less of it on the PC. Otherwise it's important how the program is coded. I've also noticed programs using less memory crippling the performance while others more fatter run like they doesn't exist. Somewhere in Opera forums read that this browser intelligently detect the RAM amount and use as much as reasonably possible so it can run much smoother and faster.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.