AV-Comparatives Performance Test - May 2013

3link9

3link9

Level 5
Thread author
Verified
Oct 22, 2011
860
226
367
United States
Interactive Chart (Lower is Better):
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2013&month=5&sort=1
 
Anything else wrong besides Kaspersky? Kaspersky also performs well in the latest AV-Test and Passmark tests.
 
Have anyone read this

http://www.melih.com/2011/11/27/av-comparatives-org-bullying-censorship-and-financial-deals-with-anti-virus-vendors/

Just don't beleive these tests...
 
Please note guys, This is a performance test, This means computer usability like RAM and CPU usage and overall computer usability and impact. not how many Malware it catches.
 
3link9 said:
Please note guys, This is a performance test, This means computer usability like RAM and CPU usage and overall computer usability and impact. not how many Malware it catches.
Click to expand...

My quote was from the AV-Comparatives Performance article.
 
PDF for May 2013

Seems surprisingly when the methodology looks different in dealing performances but again the importance is that will not conflict for our daily tasks.
 
I would not expect Kaspersky to get 2nd place. It does use a fair amount of resources.
 
Kaspersky 2nd place?!
Yeah right!:P
 
Kaspersky uses it a lot of ram but it feels lighter than most other vendors I've tried.
 
I have not tried all of the products in this test but the ones that I have don't correspond with my findings.

The results for Kaspersky are very suspicious and so are the results for BitDefender. Both have a lower system impact than MSE??, yeah right.

Kapersky and BitDefender lower system impact than Emsisoft?? not from what I have found.

Fortinet has a lot of processes but is still has much lower impact than Kapersky and BitDefender. FortiClient Lite uses about the same as MSE.

Even more suspicion for Avira which seam to run the lightest on every system that I tried it on.

Most users who tried these products knows this test is not accurate.
I suspect Kaspersky and BitDefender paid they very well for this test.

Thanks.:D
 
Littlebits said:
I have not tried all of the products in this test but the ones that I have don't correspond with my findings.

The results for Kaspersky are very suspicious and so are the results for BitDefender. Both have a lower system impact than MSE??, yeah right.

Kapersky and BitDefender lower system impact than Emsisoft?? not from what I have found.

Fortinet has a lot of processes but is still has much lower impact than Kapersky and BitDefender. FortiClient Lite uses about the same as MSE.

Even more suspicion for Avira which seam to run the lightest on every system that I tried it on.

Most users who tried these products knows this test is not accurate.
I suspect Kaspersky and BitDefender paid they very well for this test.

Thanks.:D
Click to expand...

Passmark has a really good benchmark system and it did review most AV's and personally i add great value to Passmarks findings as they are 9 out of 10 times spot on. Also they benchmark software for some testing labs as a independent contractor. So i got every reason to trust their findings.
So if you want to find out check here
 
The main problem is that benchmark score, memory usage, number of processes and CPU may have nothing to do with system response time when you start a program, Windows Explorer, browsers, Windows boot time, etc.

My best example is ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus + Firewall.

Uses a lot of memory compared to other security suites but doesn't slow down system response time as much as others like Avast, Avira, AVG, BitDefender, Kaspersky, etc.

Some users will only go by how much memory it uses and say it is heavy when it is actually very lite. If you have at least 1GB of RAM installed on your system, the memory usage is not important. What is important does it make your system run slow. Many security products may be lite on memory and CPU but still kill your system response time like Kaspersky, BitDefender and Comodo.

Therefore I believe benchmark tests do not tell you the truth about how a product will run on your system. They should test I/O reads if they want to do an accurate test.

Thanks.:D
 
Kaspersky is the same it uses a lot of ram but there's no impact on the system it's as light as a feather.

Edit: For me Kis feels lighter on my system than avast did, while using avast I'd feel a slow down when launching programmes. To me anyone who says Kis 2013 is heavy on the system clearly hasn't tested it for long enough. I have it running on 3 system and it runs light on them all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...