Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

AV benchmarks (antivirus)


dvn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I found this interesting Internet Security Suite/AV benchmark comparison report on the PassMark site. It's two different comparisons. One for the suites, and one just for the AV's.

 

As far as AV-only software goes, based upon this report and everything else I've been hearing over the last few months, I think Norton has finally risen from the ashes to become a decent choice. Taking this report at face value, I'm rethinking my use of Microsoft Security Essentials on my machines and ones I repair.

 

So take a look and tell me what you think. Does this report change your mind about your current malware protection choices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • dvn

    6

  • Greg Welch

    3

  • SabatonFan80

    3

  • Joe_Miner

    3

Norton has burned way too many bridges for me to *ever* install any of their crapware again. As Dave would say "Not Gonna Happen". :)

 

(The same goes for those bastards at RealNetworks..)

 

As far as AV goes, I'm comfortable having only Security Essentials on all my machines. I'm confident that MS thinks its in their best interests to keep the product clean, and up to date. As long as its not a resource hog, I have no problem running it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norton has burned way too many bridges for me to *ever* install any of their crapware again. As Dave would say "Not Gonna Happen". :)

 

(The same goes for those bastards at RealNetworks..)

 

As far as AV goes, I'm comfortable having only Security Essentials on all my machines. I'm confident that MS thinks its in their best interests to keep the product clean, and up to date. As long as its not a resource hog, I have no problem running it.

That's cool, but did you look at the report?

 

Like you, I've said the same about Norton for years, and McAfee. I've dramatically sped up systems just by uninstalling either of these bloated suites. Internet Security? Only because they cripple your computer so you can hardly move. But things go in cycles. Norton has been in a trough for a number of years, but from everything I've been hearing, they've made dramatic improvements. I'll let you know because I ordered a 3-pack from Newegg. If I'm not too lazy, I'll do my own A/B with MSE and Norton and post the results.

 

RealNetworks...hahaha. Haven't thought them for years. VLC pretty much plays anything, if I should need it. I'm with you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankds DVN this is a great report. Can not say I am very surprised thought as I have been running Norton's for years since its releasee. That said, it has chnged drastically starting since 2010 version. Most negative comments about NIS 2010 come from one of two reasons, first people got turned off on versions 2009 and earlier as they did slow down you system. When you have a bad experience you many times do not go back and assume that it will get better. Secondly there is a VAST difference between NIS and Norton 360, which as has been and still is a piece of junk. Anyone who has had that installed when they bought thier computers is completely turned off of the Norton's suite and miss out trying the best sweeet out there. I must say that the change between 201 and 2011 is even better than I imagined. I upgraded all my systems the day it came out and it has been stellar. Thanks for the detailed report.

 

SabatonFan80,

 

I am guessing by your reaction that have gone donw the 2009 install issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 360 is just horrible. Bloated, useless. I've personally seen it fail big time, as when my sister's computer was infected by the fake Antivirus 2009 malware while using it. Fortunately, I had just heard of a new product - MalwareBytes - which cleaned up the mess. Been using that and SUPERAntiSpyware as my goto tools ever since.

 

If the Passmark report is to be believed, and you were installing an AV-only product, you'd seriously have to consider Norton over MSE. At $35 for a 3-user licence, it's affordable.

 

*Now that Intel has acquired McAfee, look for their CPU's to be optimized for it. That's the speculation, anyway. My own thought on that is that Intel better not do anything that would hinder other AV's performance, or...lawsuit!

Edited by dvn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That "benchmark" seemed completely useless to me. The #1 reason for choosing an AV is how well it does with viruses. Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right it in that job one is to protect, however, many do a decent job at protecting however you do not want to choke up the performance of your system. Performance is still important and so is stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AJ - I definitely see your point. Detection rate is the first concern of any of AV/security product. And these particular benchmarks concentrate solely on the performance impact by the various products. You're free, however, to mine the data provided here in any way you see fit. I do. And I see that Norton has done an about-face from its long history of adverse impact on a system. Yet, knowing that Norton's past history demonstrates it generally does well in detection tests, I couple that knowledge with the information that these benchmarks provide and make the assessment that I can once again recommend Norton to people who come to me for help. And I will, at this point and time, continue to steer them away from McAfee, even though it may protect them better than AVG Free, because it is in serious need of optimization. And when I make that statement, I'm thinking about an average-powered PC, not one of our l337 i7 systems that can run VM's better than these can.

 

There is no 'god-mode' type AV where you can do anything you want on the Internet and not get in trouble. Some people may think that it's an AV's job to provide total security, and they're stunned when there PC becomes infected and useless, but they eventually come to understand otherwise. It's always been explained to me, and I agree, that effective security and protection needs a layered approach. So, AV & router & firewall & system security updates & ISP spam/virus filtering/blocking & common (uncommon) sense & awareness that certain types of sites are more risky than others & experience are all things that go toward keeping you protected. And that's certainly not an all-inclusive list because you could add software layer with something like SUPERAntiSpyware that monitors in real-time (licensed version) alongside any AV without any significant performance impact.

 

I don't know, but we sure do spend a lot of time talking about optimization and performance. So I think these benchmarks fall right in line with what a lot of us are trying to achieve here. N'est-ce pas? :)

Edited by dvn
clean up errant html encoding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool, but did you look at the report?

Admittedly, I only skimmed it. My gut reaction was simply to rail against any recommendation of Norton software hehe.

 

I still don't know whether I buy in to the whole concept of benchmarking AV. Or at least in a very broad sense. What works well for a standard desktop PC won't necessarily be performant on a workstation, or on a server.

 

I think AV is just one of those things that's very hard to compare in a general context. It's nice that some people or organizations (hopefully unbiased) are making an attempt though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...