Antivirus program with low RAM and CPU usage?

[luke904]

does avast use very much ram/CPU? i'd like an antivirus program that does not sacrifice performance (or very little)

 

[dk70]

When Norton put cpu/ram usage meters in their program and brags about it too you know "resources" is not an issue

I dont think you find many AV programs which slow down computer in any way you notice. Not resident parts at least. Some are heavier than others - like Kaspersky. You should not care about saving 1-2% cpu usage when you have 100% available. Care more about how stable it runs and how much you can tweak to own liking. Avast lets you play with settings, disable modules you dont use - or see the point in having running. Also exclude folders, drives even. You can decide system is 100% clean and disable scanning for open programs, only new programs/create files. See if you notice a difference, my guess is nope.

Avast on-demand scanner seem fairly slow to me but be careful about the logic between speed and quality. Like with defraggers, the fastest can be the worst even if some enjoy the "speed". If for example Avast support 7-zip files (it does) and you have 10000 of those - how bad would it not look compared to other AV which skip all 7z files?

Much easier if you just tried it out. If you like it you can definitely also live with resource usage. If you dont like it will be uninstalled even if light as a feather. I think they are working on a new 5 version, assuming they dont screw up it is not likely to become slower than 4.x.

 

[rive0108]

NOD32 has the fastest/most acurate scanning, with the smallest resource footprint.
Free ESET Online Antivirus Scanner

For futher info on antivirus products (how well they perform)
http://www.vistax64.com/system-security/172321-vista-sp1-antivirus-performance.html

 

[dk70]

Well he was asking about Avasts cpu/ram usage. May be find AV-comparatives Performance report from october 08 which is somewhat relevant - and showing another picture, 9 AV products all got highest ranking, including Avast and ESET

Also note until that report they would not do such a test and still regard it as an introduction and mainly focusing on real time scanner. Some did not get Advanced+ because of 1 test they say is "highly controversial". They are good at testing because they make an effort and dont hide conditions, like so many others who dont write long pdf files, but this one is close to not so important.

 

[rive0108]

Well he was asking about Avasts cpu/ram usage. May be find AV-comparatives Performance report from october 08 which is somewhat relevant - and showing another picture, 9 AV products all got highest ranking, including Avast and ESET

Also note until that report they would not do such a test and still regard it as an introduction and mainly focusing on real time scanner. Some did not get Advanced+ because of 1 test they say is "highly controversial". They are good at testing because they make an effort and dont hide conditions, like so many others who dont write long pdf files, but this one is close to not so important.

NOD32 was the only product to get Advanced+ "3 star" certification in the November 2008 testing from AV-Comparatives. it also has consistently recieved VB100 awards from Virus Bulletin across all O/S platforms . Avast got low certification (Standard "1 star"), and failed to recieve the VB100 in recent Vista x64 and Vista SP1 testing (April and December 2008) for failling to detect malware, and for detecting legitimate programs as "malware" which causes system/program instability (ultimately this can result in Windows reinstallation due to file corruption).

 

[dk70]

May be you should make a thread about your favorite AV then? Dont see what your posts has to with question asked.

 

[rive0108]

May be you should make a thread about your favorite AV then? Dont see what your posts has to with question asked.

There is already a thread regarding the performance of antivirus products in system security, and the question here is "What program has low CPU and RAM usage?" (i.e., system resource footprint), and that is NOD32.
An antivirus product that has a small footprint, but inferior protection is a useless program IMO as it results in low resource usage UNTIL you are infected by malware and viruses which then can put an excessive load on the system that can cause corruption and loss of system functionality (thus defeating the purpose of a small footprint AV program in the first place). One has to look at the bigger picture here: Do you want a AV program that performs and protects, or one that doesnt?

 

[dk70]

No it is not, he mentions Avast in particular and not what is "best" - as if that would be interesting. There is much reason to think he also would prefer free AV btw. I think you should read their pdf-files instead of just refering to stars and gold medals. How come higher detection rate than ESET give lower ranking for example? Does it matter, why and why not? How come Avast can go from + to no + - and will that change in 2-3 months? It is a bit more complicated than one-liniers. AV-Comparatives do their stuff to prevent that way of looking at this. When they pick and rank they evaluate more than a few parameters.

If you look at their questionable performance report you will see only 2 regular AV programs can be said to fall out of the frame.

Avira was chosen as AV of the year by AV-Comparatives so may be time to change current favorite?

 

[rive0108]

No it is not, he mentions Avast in particular and not what is "best" - as if that would be interesting. There is much reason to think he also would prefer free AV btw. I think you should read their pdf-files instead of just refering to stars and gold medals. How come higher detection rate than ESET give lower ranking for example? Does it matter, why and why not? How come Avast can go from + to no + - and will that change in 2-3 months? It is a bit more complicated than one-liniers. AV-Comparatives do their stuff to prevent that way of looking at this. When they pick and rank they evaluate more than a few parameters.

If you look at their questionable performance report you will see only 2 regular AV programs can be said to fall out of the frame.

Avira was chosen as AV of the year by AV-Comparatives so may be time to change current favorite?

"i'd like an antivirus program that does not sacrifice performance (or very little)"
my fault I thought the thread starter was asking about small footprints AND performance

BTW, It s not just AV-Comparatives, but also Virus Bulletin. I evaluate according to "Certified" Lab test results of real world malware detection rates, and find no value in "editor's Picks" (as most Editor's picks are a result of a Vendor paying them to promote their AV).Avira is ok (other than the fact that it detects legitimate programs as malware excessively which results in system/program instability and corruption)

 

[Asky]

Rite now believe it or not Norton AV 2009 ( Either the normal one or gaming edition one, both rock)

 

[dk70]

That is my point, you dont evaluate at all - only refer to what can be consumed in few seconds, like a pic. There is Toptenreviews for that. Users should know better.

Avira cause instability and corruption? And yet they still chose in as AV of 2008, very strange. Where do you dig such nonsense up? May be you have also misunderstood what false positive mean. Try find some ESET forum and dig in. And no it is not just ESET that give users problems - all does! Another parameter. You cant make it black and white though that is obviously the goal. Boring.

We can agree Norton rocks in 2009! The whole series - I have only tried NIS2009 but hey, we are allowed to assume right?

Read their summary of 2008, another pdf file. Here they list pros and cons for each AV. There are pros and cons for every product be sure of that.

 

[rive0108]

Rite now believe it or not Norton AV 2009 ( Either the normal one or gaming edition one, both rock)

Norton is a excellent product, but has always been a system resource hog. Has this been fixed in the 2009 edition? The only issue I have with Symantec (other than the huge footprint) is it is a bit lacking in Hueristic detection of new and emerging Malware. (for which Virus definitions do not yet exist).
According to the lastest AV-Comparative, NOD32 outperformed Symantec's Norton in all areas except detection of script malware for hueristic detection:

On demand detection capabilites of malware (Higher % is better)
(Heuristic) Proactive detection of new samples (1st week)
Norton 44%
NOD32 54%

(Heuristic) Proactive detection of new samples (all 4 weeks)
Norton 44%
NOD32 51%


False positives are the detecting of malware that is fact not malware which when removed can cause program/Windows instability and crashes. (Lower % is better)
Norton 12%
NOD32 7%

Component Detection Results (Heuristic/non-updated Virus Signatures). (Higher % is better)
Windows Viruses
Norton 57%
NOD32 57%

Script malware detection
Norton 27%
NOD32 11%

Worms detection
Norton 53%
NOD32 60%

Backdoor Trojans detection
Norton 50%
NOD32 58%

Trojan Horse detection
Norton 42%
NOD32 48%

Other Malware detection
Norton 47%
NOD32 51%

 

[dk70]

Last week both Norton and Nod32 let me install AV2009 - not sure I like Norton anyway. No, it blows - same old from Norton. Avira, Avast did not help much either. I submitted one of the exe-files to Avira Friday and it was only included in updates few hours ago. So dont click too much during weekends is all I have to say if you get AV of 2008. What should I do? Download a vb100 logo and use it as wallpaper to scare the evil stuff away? Getting frustrated, even if I used a Virtualbox I still think it could be because of Vista! I never ever got infected on XP. Where can I buy foolproof safety which let me do what I want?

 

[rive0108]

Last week both Norton and Nod32 let me install AV2009 - not sure I like Norton anyway. No, it blows - same old from Norton. Avira, Avast did not help much either. I submitted one of the exe-files to Avira Friday and it was only included in updates few hours ago. So dont click too much during weekends is all I have to say if you get AV of 2008. What should I do? Download a vb100 logo and use it as wallpaper to scare the evil stuff away? Getting frustrated, even if I used a Virtualbox I still think it could be because of Vista! I never ever got infected on XP. Where can I buy foolproof safety which let me do what I want?

Do you not use UAC? IE7 runs in sandbox, malware programs can only install if you allow and authorize it.

 

[Asky]

Rite now believe it or not Norton AV 2009 ( Either the normal one or gaming edition one, both rock)

Norton is a excellent product, but has always been a system resource hog. Has this been fixed in the 2009 edition? The only issue I have with Symantec (other than the huge footprint) is it is a bit lacking in Hueristic detection of new and emerging Malware. (for which Virus definitions do not yet exist).
According to the lastest AV-Comparative, NOD32 outperformed Symantec's Norton in all areas except detection of script malware for hueristic detection:

On demand detection capabilites of malware (Higher % is better)
(Heuristic) Proactive detection of new samples (1st week)
Norton 44%
NOD32 54%

(Heuristic) Proactive detection of new samples (all 4 weeks)
Norton 44%
NOD32 51%


False positives are the detecting of malware that is fact not malware which when removed can cause program/Windows instability and crashes. (Lower % is better)
Norton 12%
NOD32 7%

Component Detection Results (Heuristic/non-updated Virus Signatures). (Higher % is better)
Windows Viruses
Norton 57%
NOD32 57%

Script malware detection
Norton 27%
NOD32 11%

Worms detection
Norton 53%
NOD32 60%

Backdoor Trojans detection
Norton 50%
NOD32 58%

Trojan Horse detection
Norton 42%
NOD32 48%

Other Malware detection
Norton 47%
NOD32 51%

yep its been fixed, its no longer a resource hog. just sits there and does its job.

 

[Ojaser6]

People should also consider price AND performance.

 

[dk70]

I would rate need higher but there is more to this than listing numbers.

Wise words from AV-Comparatives:

If you plan to buy an Anti-Virus, please visit the vendor's site and evaluate their software by downloading a trial version, as there are also many other features (e.g. firewall, HIPS, behaviorblocker, etc.) and important things (e.g. price, graphical user interface, compatibility, etc.) for an Anti-Virus that you should evaluate by yourself. Even if quite important, the data provided in the test reports on this site are just some aspects that you should consider when buying Anti-Virus software

About my testing, that was only to show how little you can trust security programs. UAC on or off dont matter for their ability to prevent installations, they should not rely on that.

 

[ltwally]

When Norton put cpu/ram usage meters in their program and brags about it too you know "resources" is not an issue

I dont think you find many AV programs which slow down computer in any way you notice. Not resident parts at least. ... ...

I disagree, in part.

On a nice, new, beefy machine, you are correct in that with quad hyperthreaded cores, a speedy Solid State Drive and 16gigs of RAM this is not an issue.

However, an awful lot of people out there are running Vista on run-of-the-mill hardware. When all you've got is a 1.8ghz CPU, 1gig of RAM and a pokey old hard drive.... yes, NORTON can be very noticable.

I always recommend folks stay away from Norton and McAffee. They are slow, bloated and tend to catch fewer nasties than most other antivirus packages.

Currently, my personal list of "good" antivirus for the home user: Bitdefender, NOD32, Trend Micro. They tend to be lighter on the resources and better at catching critters.

 

[ltwally]

Norton is a excellent product,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. For the past several years it's done an increasingly poorer job at catching viruses while simultaneously getting more and more bloated and slowing systems down worse and worse. It's just plain a bad product, and it's been surviving on nothing more than strong advertising / PR and the name "Norton" for far too long.

but has always been a system resource hog.

That much is true. Or, at least in the past 5-6 years.


Yes, I've seen that they're making strides to improve it. But from what I've seen, they still have a long way to go. Far too much effort on a flashy UI and far too little effort on simply making it do its job with a minimum of resources.

 

[dk70]

If resident part of an AV is such a killer of speed I think there are other problems, like Vista on a 1gb, 1.8mhz with old hd Not really much to do about it if true.

If speed is highest priority then may be better to make a tactic not requiring so much resident protection. Will be more efficient and easier than looking for transparent AV because they dont exist.