Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Toms] Do Antivirus Suites Impact Your PC's Performance?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Toms] Do Antivirus Suites Impact Your PC's Performance? - Page 2

post #11 of 81
I use AVG and it's always worked for me....
post #12 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post
I use AVG and it's always worked for me....
Ew...

AVG has been flaky as of late with their antivirus

Microsoft Security Essentials has been pretty good, while Avira free is amazing
post #13 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
The webpage load time was the most interesting and surprising to me.

However, I am sad that they focused on CPU load as the primary emphasis of the study as opposed to hard drive usage, since the hard drive is by far the rate-limiting component of most current computers (as even stated in the article, CPU's are "so" fast these days, is it even relevant to discuss the toll AV programs have on them?). It would have been nice to see some more hard drive-based results. I know for sure, when my work laptop (running a symantec AV program) is doing the scheduled weekly scan, good luck getting MS Word to open in a tenth the time of what it normally does--and that's even with superfetch enabled. Another program that isn't accessed nearly as often? Might as well just wait until the scan completes...

Anyhoo, I use Avast for my personal computers. I honestly have no idea as to its "secureness," because I never get notified that it's caught anything, but I also don't notice any slow-downs. And to be honest, other than real-time protection, I don't have it do any scheduled "deep" scans, but I also don't practice poor internet usage that would enable getting a virus or malware, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
Yet another toms article that misses the point, HDD and RAM bandwidth are what should be checked.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Ditto. I remember using Windows Vista and Norton 2006 on a 5400 rpm laptop drive was excruciatingly slow and unresponsive.

Although Tom's did do app installation times, boot up, stand-by, etc. Here is a funny graph:



Somehow, the "clean config" without an anti-virus was slowest for boot time. My guess is the image they used did not have all the prefetch/superfecth cache ready. On the other hand, the image with AV installed had the cache populated.

For the most part AV did not impair system performance except for instances like this:



However, they were using a 5400 rpm laptop hard drive. I wonder if a 7200 rpm desktop hard drive or even an SSD would be unaffected. Random access times are very important for AV scanning.
Edited by Riou - 10/11/11 at 6:38am
post #14 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsunx View Post
CommonSensePro2012
Which is certainly great, but doesn't really help if a site you trust gets infected.
ISIS mainframe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5-2500K @ 4.5 GHz AsRock Z68 Pro3 Gainward GTX 560 "Phantom" 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Intel 320 SSD 120 gb Win7 x64 Dell 2209WA Corsair AX750 
CaseMouse
Fractal Design Define R3 Steelseries Xai 
  hide details  
Reply
ISIS mainframe
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5-2500K @ 4.5 GHz AsRock Z68 Pro3 Gainward GTX 560 "Phantom" 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Intel 320 SSD 120 gb Win7 x64 Dell 2209WA Corsair AX750 
CaseMouse
Fractal Design Define R3 Steelseries Xai 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
Yet another toms article that misses the point, HDD and RAM bandwidth are what should be checked.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Perhaps in terms of scanning time.

I didn't read the article but just from the title I thought for sure they were merely testing the impact that AV suites had on the system when they weren't scanning the HDD's but just using active protection to block incoming viruses. That's more what I'd be interested in. I don't ever have a scan scheduled when I am awake anyways.

Apparently they went over the whole scheme of things other than HDD and RAM though so fail on that part.
 
Project Al
(69 photos)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700k Gigabyte UD4 MSI 580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition 3GB 2x4GB G.Skill @ 1600mhz CL6 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
OCZ Vertex II SSD OCZ Vertex II SSD LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Combo Drive Win 7 Ult 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Achieva Shimian Acer G235H XArmor U9BL Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Define R3 Silver Arrow Razer Naga Ultimate Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Polk Audio RTi-A1 
AudioAudio
Dayton Audio DTA-100a Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Project Al
(69 photos)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700k Gigabyte UD4 MSI 580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition 3GB 2x4GB G.Skill @ 1600mhz CL6 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
OCZ Vertex II SSD OCZ Vertex II SSD LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Combo Drive Win 7 Ult 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Achieva Shimian Acer G235H XArmor U9BL Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Define R3 Silver Arrow Razer Naga Ultimate Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Polk Audio RTi-A1 
AudioAudio
Dayton Audio DTA-100a Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mhill2029 View Post
Not sure how a 2600k is beyond the reach of most people, not like we're talking about a 990x CPU is it.
Because most people buy $5-600 computers, not 1000-2000.

Also wouldn't the biggest impact from a virus scan running be on the HDD performance and not the CPU anyways?
post #17 of 81
Quote:

This view magnifies differences in the results. The obvious conclusion is that Kaspersky seized the day and Microsoft...didn’t.
Wait, what...
Correct me if I'm wrong (haven't used PCmark 7), but doesn't a higher score normally indicate better performance?
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
QX6850 E0 3.60GHz @1.45v Asus P5Q Pro Turbo Gigabyte R6870 OC 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2-1066, 5-5-5-15 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO 120GB Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB Lite-On iHAS122 CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-Bit Acer X243H 24" Microsoft SideWinder x4 Chieftec BPS-650C 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Aerocool X-Warrior Black Edition Steelseries Kana Skyrim-pad Asus Xonar DG 
AudioOther
Creative Inspire T3100 PS3 controller 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium 4 HT Northwood 3.4 @ 3.5GHz ASRock P4i48 Club3D Radeon HD4670 AGP 1GB 2x1GB PQI DDR400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG HD320LJ 320GB SATA Lite-On iHAS122 Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 32Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung SyncMaster 795mb 17" Microsoft Internet Keyboard Gigabyte GE-R460-V1 460W Caseless 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech RX1000 Generic black mouse pad Onboard Creative Inspire T3100 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
QX6850 E0 3.60GHz @1.45v Asus P5Q Pro Turbo Gigabyte R6870 OC 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2-1066, 5-5-5-15 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 840 EVO 120GB Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB Lite-On iHAS122 CoolerMaster Hyper 212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-Bit Acer X243H 24" Microsoft SideWinder x4 Chieftec BPS-650C 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Aerocool X-Warrior Black Edition Steelseries Kana Skyrim-pad Asus Xonar DG 
AudioOther
Creative Inspire T3100 PS3 controller 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium 4 HT Northwood 3.4 @ 3.5GHz ASRock P4i48 Club3D Radeon HD4670 AGP 1GB 2x1GB PQI DDR400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG HD320LJ 320GB SATA Lite-On iHAS122 Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 32Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung SyncMaster 795mb 17" Microsoft Internet Keyboard Gigabyte GE-R460-V1 460W Caseless 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech RX1000 Generic black mouse pad Onboard Creative Inspire T3100 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 81
Yes it impacts, if you have a really slow system already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmanden View Post
Which is certainly great, but doesn't really help if a site you trust gets infected.
This. And I can't believe people still find the "Common Sense Security" joke funny in 2011.
post #19 of 81
I expected nothing less than crazy, self contradicting graphs from toms. They never fail to deliver.
post #20 of 81
I disagree with the placement of Avira, I had Avira installed on my laptop and it missed a trojan that was chilling out deep in one of my folders that Malwarebytes found from another OS. Also would like to see where Malwarebytes sits on that list
Project Purity
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 EVGA P55 FTW 200 EVGA GTX 480 Corsair Dominator GT 4Gb x 2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
2x500gb Spinpoint F3 (Raid 0)/1tb Spinpoint F3 Asus DRW Heatkiller 3.0 XSPC EX360 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Swiftech MCP655 EK GTX 480 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung UN32C6500 32" LED TV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Steelseries Merc Stealth Corsair HX1000W Corsair Obsidian 800d Razer Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Destructor Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
Project Purity
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 750 EVGA P55 FTW 200 EVGA GTX 480 Corsair Dominator GT 4Gb x 2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
2x500gb Spinpoint F3 (Raid 0)/1tb Spinpoint F3 Asus DRW Heatkiller 3.0 XSPC EX360 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Swiftech MCP655 EK GTX 480 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung UN32C6500 32" LED TV 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Steelseries Merc Stealth Corsair HX1000W Corsair Obsidian 800d Razer Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Razer Destructor Asus Xonar DX 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Software News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Software News › [Toms] Do Antivirus Suites Impact Your PC's Performance?