Battle Performance delta between ESET Premium and McAffee latest

[Parkinsond]

But granted, everyone is using a different device set up (RAM/CPU, running software etc.) so that can be a factor in how it may perform differently on our personal devices.

Different device, different settings; some AV configuration may increase the performance impact; disabling some features may improve the device performance.

 

[TuxTalk]

 

[Parkinsond]

View attachment 295853

 

[Khushal]

View attachment 295854

 

[Parkinsond]

View attachment 295855

Sometimes it get as low as 50 or less RAM usage, according to the activity.

 

[Khushal]

View attachment 295856
Sometimes it get as low as 50 or less RAM usage, according to the activity.

depends on ram config this system of mine has 48gb ram in triple channel which is not ideal

 

[Parkinsond]

depends on ram config this system of mine has 48gb ram in triple channel which is not ideal

Mine is 8 GB, but I have 6 ASR rules enabled and cloud protection to "zero tolerance".

 

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

In my experience, Process Explorer reveals much more memory usage by my antivirus than the regular Task Manager. The discrepancy is sizeable.

Although it seems to be more insightful than little old Task Manager, it still doesn't show the full extent with critical components running in kernel mode.

 

[Parkinsond]

In my experience, Process Explorer reveals much more memory usage by my antivirus than the regular Task Manager. The discrepancy is sizeable.

Although it seems to be more insightful than little old Task Manager, it still doesn't show the full extent with key components running in kernel-mode.

If using only one tool to compare RAM usage for several AVs in row, then any deviation by such a tool will be applied to all the AVs; no confounding factor.

 

[ForgottenSeer 116559]

If using only one tool to compare RAM usage for several AVs in row, then any deviation by such a tool will be applied to all the AVs; no confounding factor.

Different antiviruses will "hide" their memory usage differently. Very much contrary to most antivirus designs, McAfee barely runs in kernel mode, for example.

Comparing different antiviruses in Task Manager is like comparing icebergs from the surface of the water.

 

[Parkinsond]

Different antiviruses will "hide" their memory usage differently

If you refer to Kaspersky is capable of hiding its true RAM usage from task manager, this is a credit to Kaspersky; those who created K do know what they do.

 

[cartaphilus]

Testing BD will be a bit tricky. You have to run an update and a full scan and restart your PC. Then allow BD to adapt to your PC for the next 7 days. Only then will you get the true results.

Ahh #####. Well at least we will see what it does when asked to do the same layout as above. Currently full scan finished. I turned off the PC. Wait d 1 min turned it back on. Updated the definitions. Waited 5 min and run the test. First run 10300

 

[cartaphilus]

These impact scores essentially translate to nothing noticeable in typical daily use for the average person using a Windows system purchased within the past five years.

View attachment 295851

Yeap that's what I am seeing and that's what I said above. In reality it feels like no difference. But by being pedantic based on numbers there is an impact but it wouldn't be felt by everyday users. Maybe maybe if you were using your PC to run some finate element computing then the impact would be felt (grander scale). I am just doing the runs to finally prove to myself which AV is fastest on my home configuration. Nothing more and nothing less. For everyday use this is meaningless and one should pick a solution that suits their needs the best and not what I show here.

 

[Wrecker4923]

Process Explorer reveals much more memory usage by my antivirus than the regular Task Manager. The discrepancy is sizeable.

The first column is working set, the second is private bytes.

 

[Parkinsond]

View attachment 295857
View attachment 295858

We need to compare it with the figures of the remaining major AVs; B on task manager scores 500 MB, may be on this app is scoring 1 GB.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

Hell, with 16 threads pushing max 5.2GHz and 92GB of RAM, you could honestly run every single top pick simultaneously! Seriously, why worry about system resources when you have that much horsepower to spare.

 

[Zero Knowledge]

AMD 9800X3D
MSI 870e Tommahawk
92gb of ram
990 NVME

LOL ..... You could run 20 AV/AM suites simultaneously with those specs and not have a slowdown.

When you have that much DDR/RAM & a X3D CPU I wouldn't be worrying about resource intensive security suites.

@Divergant beat me too it! My thoughts exactly!

​

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

I really hope your post will get more future affirmation, I personally Bookmarked it.

For AV malware tests, I absolutely understand using a VMware environment, but for everyday assessments at times posted here, I don't think is gives a full picture of a AV's performance and system impact without all of the other variables mentioned in point #2 as well as not using all the PC's RAM and CPU resources. Even though the difference may be negligible, I still like "real world use" feedback better, but, I understand for general test driving of the AV's settings, malware protection etc. there is no better option but from within a VMware workstation.

But granted, everyone is using a different device set up (RAM/CPU, running software etc.) so that can be a factor in how it may perform differently on our personal devices.

Nothing, technically, is ever as it seems. The facts. Those are what matter. But people here at MT seem only interested in "chopping it up" with personal opinions and anecdotal evidence.

Threads like this one are worse than the movie "The Battle of the Last Panzer."

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Yeap that's what I am seeing and that's what I said above. In reality it feels like no difference. But by being pedantic based on numbers there is an impact but it wouldn't be felt by everyday users. Maybe maybe if you were using your PC to run some finate element computing then the impact would be felt (grander scale). I am just doing the runs to finally prove to myself which AV is fastest on my home configuration. Nothing more and nothing less. For everyday use this is meaningless and one should pick a solution that suits their needs the best and not what I show here.

A full system AV scan run while a hydrodynamics model study was simultaneously running in HELYX-Marine software, then it would be noticeable even when running on a very high end 7,000 Euro Dell Precision Workstation or even a 10,000 Euro tower PC with double-stacked RTX 5080s. Even on an AMD Threadripper system all maxxed out with top-of-line ECC memory and RAID SSDs.

Other than that, probably not noticeable.

Anyways, if you're the type of person who is running hydrodynamics models on your workstation you probably are informed that it should be done on an air-gapped system for security purposes. That does not mean that you'll do it. In fact, you'll probably be too lazy ot hit the Airplane Mode button and then store your outputs in an insecure manner in the cloud and locally.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[cartaphilus]

So far Norton is trending in the ESET ballpark of 11200 and I didn't know that they have a sandbox app luncher akin to sandboxie. Now, I will have to investigate further. ...that's quite a nice addon. Now I am thinking of letting my ESET expire after well being an Nod32 ESET fanboy since 1998. (That red pulsing bubo looking thingy from version 1....image search fails me. I guess it was before images were a common thing on the web).