Kaspersky PURE 3.0 vs BitDefender Total Security 2015 vs FREE Anti-Virus software/ internet security

[Budget Gamer]

Trying to figure out which security software to get for my new gaming/business/work rig.

I currently have been using Kaspersky. It's been great, although sometimes it detects something minor, but it recommends to "ignore" it, instead of completely erase. I think it just quarantines it, but doesn't remove it completely. I guess as long as it's safe it's alright, but I would prefer it to not be any present "threat".

Also, on my current very, very low-end computer I use for web-surfing, every so often, my computer will slow down a lot (it is a low-end/weak PC). I would pull up the task manager and see under process, that Kaspersky will be running in the background using the CPU at 90%. And that is when practically nothing is open, but when I am a few tabs of youtube videos open, CPU goes to full 100% (2.7 GHz DUAL core, 4GB DDR3 RAM) and as you can imagine, things get really slow. When this happens, the task manager shows Kaspersky running, but will also show each web browser CPU usage increase from 2 all the way to 20% per browser. Now these are trusted sites and not normally causing any problems, I am thinking it is just random times Kaspersky runs a background scan of some sort. It's not updating, and when I pull up Kaspersky window when it does this, it says it is just sitting "idle" not scanning or updating.
Not sure how much it would slow down my new rig though ($1300 rig, i7 4790K, GTX970).
Still I would be gaming on max settings, probably 1080p, maybe 1440, recording gameplay at the same time, and so I wouldn't want the security software to kick in and decrease performance enough to ruin the recordings.

But anyways, it seems Bitdefender and Kaspersky are both the top 2 best. Some reviews saying one is better, then the other saying the other is better. Not sure how the Hitman Pro, Avast, Malwarebytes stack up. What's the ultimate protection?

 

[Rit_86]

In terms of pure performance and protection, the Bitdefender is a bit ahead of Kaspersky. Also, it is very light. Kaspersky runs great when newly installed but the performance tends to degrade over time. Also Kaspersky tends to be getting more brutal with newer versions on older PCs.
That said, you will see neither of them "slow down" a PC with an i7.
Malwarebytes was and still is one of the best in terms of detection but the new version is extremely buggy and has killed some of the systems, including one of my own with constant BSoDs, so it's better not to keep it installed. Just install it once, see if it detects anything and uninstall it.
However, just as a tip, Bitdefender often gives a trial offer for 6 months. You can try that from here
http/www.bitdefender.com/media/html/spread/windowsdeal-ts/
Though the offer is not going on presently, you can keep an eye on it.
It's perfectly legal. Why don't you try it and decide for yourself ?
Same goes for the new Kaspersky, try it for yourself and then decide which to buy.

 

[Budget Gamer]

Thanks for the answer Rit. I am doing just that, I downloaded Kaspersky PURE 3.0 free month trial and will see how I like it.
Probably will stick with Kaspersky since it hasn't really let me PC get infected.
Also from reading a bit on Bitdefender, it does seem to sometimes get a bit better performance rating, but I have heard some negative things such as the firewall is not the best, little to no tech support, and some have said it can be hard to completely remove Bitdefender once installed and I read a review that said Bitdefender would automatically charge and renew their license even when they said to cancel it.

Just thinking I will avoid the potential headache and most likely stick with Kaspersky.

Although I am interested in additional/secondary free software people say good things about such as Avast, Malwarebytes and Hitman Pro (not sure if this one is free). I need to research some more on them though.

Thanks again Rit! Happy Holidays!

 

[Eelan]

I bought Bitdefender Total Security (whole home) 2016 on numerous posted recommendations but I'm living to regret it. After the first couple of months of frustration, I began keeping a log of the things that I personally thought were annoying. The non-technical home user might not notice these, though I'd hope for at least a couple. Here is my summary - again these are my perceptions and concerns:

Bitdefender Total Security 2016
Immature (or deceptive - my trust is shaken) product and service. I purchased the product based on supposed independent review claiming superior effectiveness and performance; however, after numerous attempts to address these with their support team these remain unresolved issues:
1) The product does not provide timely information or detail. I had to notice an indicator in their "widget" to find that a message was available. Days after encountering infected media, I found the message:
a) It claimed to detect and remove infections, but made no obvious effort to notify me at the time of the event.
b) Attempting to view details of this event, I can find no detailed information: Specifically what malware was detected? In which file? When (date and time)? or from which URL (if applicable)? Only a count and a "You're protected" message was provided.
2) The software claimed to "fix" more than 120 "issues", but again provides no detail information about each issue detected and how it was "fixed".
3) On a recent re-install of the software, it recommended nearly 60 patches it claimed were critical (I'm running Windows 7 64 bit). I looked up several - they had been superseded by more recent patches that had already been applied. Microsoft patching supersedes older patch files often, and I build my setup and VM images from scratch at least quarterly . The only way to catch the changes is through detailed tracking of each new patch as it's released.
4) The software has crashed a couple of times. I chose to click the button to send related information about the event back to Bitdefender. The support team emailed back a couple of days later to request I execute a "Support tool" executable to gather information. There is no additional information to specify exactly what information is being gathered other than one area stating "Bitdefender related" which can be just about anything on the current system. This is unacceptable from a privacy and security concern.
5) The software does not allow me the choice of installation folder location at the time of setup. Some of the programs files can be installed at a location of choice; however, most/many files are still installed at the required default system location and it's unclear what files actually go where - at the time of installation and at run time (see issue #6 below).
6) The software is almost constantly writing to the installation drive as the system is used. Gigabytes of very small writes are made - so many there may be a write for every file scanned. While this is not a large concern when using traditional fixed drives, it is still a concern when the operating system volume - where the software currently must be installed - is installed on today's SSD/Solid State Drives. For reference my average daily SSD write use increased from 10 to 12 gigabytes per day to 60 to 70 gigabytes per day under the same workload. This may be due to the fact that the minimal write to the current drive (block and page write amplification) is significantly larger than the 4 KB cluster in use. This may explain the dramatic increase in write use when Bitdefender is installed. After uninstalling the software, the average daily writes use dropped again to 10 to 12 GB per day.
7) The software uses a lot of RAM (my opinion) - just under 500 MB at boot, typically increasing to more than 750 MB as the machine is used. Why is so much?

Summary:
While I certainly admire and desire the products supposed ability to safely handle nearly all malware threats; these issues make me less than comfortable using it on my SSD systems long-term. The lack of available detail for malware events and "fixes" made is simply unacceptable, leads me to question the honesty of the report, and limits my ability to respond to provider of files and site administrators.