AV-Comparatives Performance Test - May 2013

[Bizarre™]

I've said it before, but the entire Kaspersky being extremely heavy is pure myth and complete nonsense. Maybe in the past with the 2012 version and earlier, but certainly not currently. I experience no slowdown or sluggishness whatsoever on an i5 2500k & 8GB Ram w/ Win 7 Pro x64. The ESET fan boys are just out and about. :P

I see

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=263284

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262196

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262409

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=261116

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262064

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262110

So, these people are liars then?

[spudboy]

uote>

I see

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=263284

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262196

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262409

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=261116

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262064

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262110

So, these people are liars then?

6 examples out of how many people that use Kaspersky? You can't be serious. I can find 6 posts about high CPU usage with Eset also, or any practically any other AV for that matter.

[Bizarre™]

6 people out of how many that use Kaspersky? You can't be serious. I can find posts about high CPU usage with Eset also, or any practically any other AV for that matter.

Now when did I include in my post about favoring ESET in any manner? Care to point it out?

I'm simply providing contrasting statements that came from other people.

[ande]

@D Thank you for posting PDF link, with detail information.

I've said it before, but the entire Kaspersky being extremely heavy is pure myth and complete nonsense. Maybe in the past with the 2012 version and earlier, but certainly not currently. I experience no slowdown or sluggishness whatsoever on an i5 2500k & 8GB Ram w/ Win 7 Pro x64. The ESET fan boys are just out and about. :P

I see

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=263284
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262196
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262409
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=261116
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262064
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=262110

So, these people are liars then?

@Bizarre and to continue on what BBs said:

You are mostly right but have in mind that part of AV is coded in ASM (in order to overwrite ring0 protection) and therefore AV can behave differently depending on drivers.

You will notice driver issues at any AV forum and their influence in performance of AV(since we are talking here about performance).

You should note that this test was performed with Anti-Virus versions, not suites, and that is big difference.

Most AV do not have HIPS, BB or similar and are in many cases free of crappy components that comes with suites.

Also this test was performed with default settings, meaning some AV is set to skip checking for any file larger than 3 MB while other larger than 10 MB,

and that gives false impression that one code is faster than other, etc.

[pweeseonichan]

I tried kaspersky pure in the early days of windows 8 and then windows 8 wouldn't shutdown and I had to reinstall os......

Avast has a good result,

[Bizarre™]

@Bizarre and to continue on what BBs said:

You are mostly right but have in mind that part of AV is coded in ASM (in order to overwrite ring0 protection) and therefore AV can behave differently depending on drivers.

You will notice driver issues at any AV forum and their influence in performance of AV(since we are talking here about performance).

You should note that this test was performed with Anti-Virus versions, not suites, and that is big difference.

Most AV do not have HIPS, BB or similar and are in many cases free of crappy components that comes with suites.

Also this test was performed with default settings, meaning some AV is set to skip checking for any file larger than 3 MB while other larger than 10 MB,

and that gives false impression that one code is faster than other, etc.

It really doesn't matter whether it's standalone or a security suite. If it's slow, it's slow.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against any AV company.

People are free to choose whatever AV they prefer.

[spudboy]

6 people out of how many that use Kaspersky? You can't be serious. I can find posts about high CPU usage with Eset also, or any practically any other AV for that matter.

Now when did I include in my post about favoring ESET in any manner? Care to point it out?

I'm simply providing contrasting statements that came from other people.

When did I say that you did? Care to point it out?

I simple provided ESET as the main example for stating that the entire high CPU thing can be found for any other AV.

[Bizarre™]

I can find 6 posts about high CPU usage with Eset also

When did I say that you did? Care to point it out?

The moment you mentioned ESET. I mean, why even mention ESET or other AV when Kaspersky is our main point of discussion?

I'm simply providing statements from other people saying that Kaspersky is CPU intensive when you say it's not.

I didn't mention other AV products because our main point of discussion is about Kaspersky. Is it not?

[ande]

Yes, I agree with you, Kaspersky is kinda 'slow'.

What this test show is that Kaspersky will allow you to manage files (copy, move, encrypt, decrypt, read, download) faster than many other 'lighter' solutions.

The essence of this test is this:

• If you do a lot of file copying do not use McAffe*
• if you do a lot of archiving do not use Trend Micro*
• if you manage a lot of documents do not use Kingsoft*
• if you often download big files do not use G DATA*,F Secure*, eScan*, AVIRA*

* - on their default settings

This test are different on suites because of modules that extend monitoring and tracking/checking of data.

Also note that machines they perform tests on are fresh, unlike real machines that are filled with apps and data, fragmented with crap.

As for why Kaspersky is slow, AV almost like IS, is laying in component called System Watcher (real-time module that monitors and logs application behavior and can based on logs restore their actions). System Watcher is constantly using CPU and Disk (accessing, reading, monitoring and storing) which is cause for slowdown, even in so-called idle (since there is always something in the background - defragmentation, downloading torrent, other security app...).

Courtesy for, let me mention also incompatible software and corrupted system as cause of slowdowns.

Depending on how interested you are you can find few ways to increase Kaspersky performance, not everything in accessible trough their GUI.

Many are quick to jump to conclusions before they even tried to fix problem, and mostly they do not inspect problem.

It is very intuitive to conclude that when machine behave strangely after installation of AV it's AV's fault, from my experience that is not always the case.

That is why I always said Kaspersky is for semi-advanced users, that can with few tweaks get and set it as they pleased.

[Bizarre™]

As for why Kaspersky is slow, AV almost like IS, is laying in component called System Watcher (real-time module that monitors and logs application behavior and can based on logs restore their actions). System Watcher is constantly using CPU and Disk (accessing, reading, monitoring and storing) which is cause for slowdown, even in so-called idle (since there is always something in the background - defragmentation, downloading torrent, other security app...).

Courtesy for, let me mention also incompatible software and corrupted system as cause of slowdowns.

Depending on how interested you are you can find few ways to increase Kaspersky performance, not everything in accessible trough their GUI.

Many are quick to jump to conclusions before they even tried to fix problem, and mostly they do not inspect problem.

It is very intuitive to conclude that when machine behave strangely after installation of AV it's AV's fault, from my experience that is not always the case.

That is why I always said Kaspersky is for semi-advanced users, that can with few tweaks get and set it as they pleased.

Aren't all programs slow at first?

Although, I do agree that once programs are properly configured they can perform reasonably well.

However, to properly configure a program, a person must have enough patience to learn how to calibrate.

Unfortunately, only a few people have said quality. Most people want everything to be prepared on a silver platter.

[spudboy]

As of this message Windows Task Manager reports that Kaspersky's avp.exe is using 11,092k for one process & 2,772k for the other. I know that's not an indication of whether or not it makes a system sluggish or not... but it is indicative of it not being a resource hog. Doing a full system scan and letting it run for a few minutes show CPU max usage at +/- 35 & memory at +/- 135,000k both while the scan is still running. All of the numbers in this post are from KAV 2013 13.01.4190 (f) w/ max settings such as the highest level heurists scanning, System Watcher enabled, etc,...

[ande]

Kaspersky Internet Security 2013 (g) on default settings:

[Bizarre™]

How an AV behaves will be different from each person's machine.

[ande]

Webroot SE Complete 2013 on default settings:

Windows 7 x64.

AV can behave differently form machine to machine, but not necessarily.

[Bizarre™]

Different people have different hardware and software configurations.
You can expect a program to run on computers.
However, you can't expect a program to be fully calibrated for all computers.
Your mileage will always vary. I know this since I handled programs for DOS, Windows, and Mac.

[BBs]

Webroot SE Complete 2013 on default settings:

Windows 7 x64.

AV can behave differently form machine to machine, but not necessarily.

Also another nice example that different avs behave differently on other machines.

Webroot slowed down my computer a lot, it was really annoying. And yet tests and ppl claim that it is extremly light.

For the note it was a freshly installed windows 8 64bit machine with Intel i7 3770K, 8gb of Ram etc.

Kaspersky and other known avs are optimized for new machines. If you never used those av software in a "new" machine, then you will probably never believe that they have 0% impact on system performance :) But I still prefer no av :D

[marshall39]

I do find Kaspersky lighter than Eset , on my laptop (Core i5 , 4GB Ram) Firefox or Spotify launche faster with KIS.

I was really surprised to see that , I even checked on my desktop (core i7 SSD) and same there is always a small lag when I launch an application with ESS :s

[ffi]

Make no mistake, it's the most powerful and secure AV out there, but light on performance and system? Not at all.

For me it's pretty light, though I haven't tried too many av's on this rig but I ran a while without any to get a feeling of the system and kaspersky didn't seem to impact it noticably

[rudrax]

The performance is measured not by taking the readings of an instance but by summing up the readings of a particular time period and in a constant environment. So it will vary machine to machine. You use what you feel comfortable with.

[TheAslan]

Where's Comodo?

[DKT27]

Where's Comodo?

AV-C and Comodo don't go together.