The fastest scanner ever?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Firefighter, Jun 14, 2003.

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

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    Hi to everyone! I have done some full scans from my PC. Those programs were with the strongest possible settings, deepest heuristics, all files, archives scanning, packed files etc. Here are the results.

    BitDefender 7.0 Free

    156 418 Files
    2 821 Folders
    8 447 Archives
    2 668 Packed

    48 min 39 s Time


    NOD32 v.2.0 1.437 20030613

    86 844 Files

    27 min 37 s Time


    Kaspersky Beta 4.5.0.19

    158 453 Files
    2 819 Folders
    8 995 Archives
    645 Packed

    59 min 21 s Time


    RAV 8.6 104

    154 221 Files
    2 819 Folders
    7 741 Archives
    3 065 Packed

    42 min 25 s Time

    Before you are saying that those report parameters are not the same, I don't believe that those numbers of the scanned files are not made with very different rules, because KAV has now the largest amount of files now, when it hasn't that before in my first test some months ago!

    I have to admit that there is still a " bug" in those packed files numbers with BitDefender and RAV, because none is better than KAV in this case!

    Unfortunately I couldn't find the numbers of those scanned folders, archives and packed with NOD!

    I am not trying now to insult anyone, I am just asking for your opinion about the fastest scanner in my PC?

    Remember this, the scanning time is not the whole thing, we must think also how much a program is capable to scan! ;)

    "The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

    Best Regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  2. Pilli

    Pilli Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    6,217
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    Firefighter, As you like statistics you do the sums :D
    Scan rate in files per second = Time (secs) divided by the No of files scanned.

    :p
     
  3. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743
    :D

    Let us even be more realistic than that. All files and their sizes and contents are NOT created equal. I can set a scanner to exclude scannig many file type and even specific files and end up to be the fastest on the block.

    When you start telling me what each on of those you have tested is really unpacking and scanning... :D :D then we can talk business.

    I knw exactly where on my systems I want and AV or AT scanner to look...and also the places I am never concerned about.

    The average user does not...so I think they would be impressed with such tests..For me ;) I just want the job done..and done correctly..time is not important.

    If you rush through a good meal..you will never enjoy the tastes.

    Fine wine is the same...bad beer will give you gas :p
     
  4. Pilli

    Pilli Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    6,217
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    Agreed Primrose, what I was trying to say is that a very simple scan speed could easily be arranged. If we scan a known directory of a specific size & file type, set the AV's to scan those file types (and ensure all the AV's are scanning the same number of files). Then do the sum above it will give us a good indication of how efficient the scan engine is. Adding in variable such as packed files would add another dimension which would be probably be harder to test especially when the main criteria is finding malware - Speed and accuracy there may be a trade off:D
    For me accuracy would be more important.
     
  5. root

    root Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,723
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    One thing to remember. The speed of electrons does not change. When you test different programs doing the same thing on the same computer, the program that took the longest, did the most work. Simple physics.
    Now, was all that work necessary? Hard to tell in a lot of cases, but I would prefer my AV be steady and effective with speed as a third or fourth determining factor.
    I did have to get rid of KAV 4.09 because it was a snail, but I am very happy with 4.5.
    NOD 32 is cool. It's good and it's fast, but it doesn't do the job the same way as KAV or RAV, so there's a difference in time.
     
  6. tahoma

    tahoma Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Posts:
    228
    does it matter much ? the important thing is that the resident scanner is fast.right?
     
  7. root

    root Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,723
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    I would rather say the important thing is the resident monitor detects what you expect it to detect, and doesn't take too much time doing it.
    A slight hit on speed may bother some, but be of no concern to others.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.