New BT speed broadband speed test

[jimexbox]

This is for download only, sorry no upload.

I was showing 50-60Mb on speedtest.net, showing a more accurate 96Mb here. A guy on the virgin 100Mb forum posted it, so cheers to him.

http://www.speedtester.bt.com/beta/speedtest-remote.jsp

*can a mod edit the first 'speed' out of the thread title, makes more sense, ta.

[tanny]

On all the other speed test sites i normally get 46MB but this site is showing 49.70MB.

Don't know how accurate this is till other members do a speed test

[crazyronnie]

i got between 107.59 - 109.60Mbps

[greeninferno]

62+ on 60 Mbit here.

[lordofangels]

It gives me 104.70 about the same as speedtest.net
Thanks for posting this jimexbox, always good to have another tester.

[webrosc]

i got 50.54 then 50.35 on the BT one
speedtest.net gave me a 50.33 and 50.33

[Martin_D]

23303

[Zhadnost]

Gives me 56.11 MBit while I'm on 50Mbit and rate-limited lower than that. (and also while there is other internet traffic going through the service).

I think the results are a bit over-optimistic.

[alwaysabear]

It gives me 67.19 on my 60mb connection wired. It would appear to be a bit on the high side.

[attman]

Gave me 76.76 on a 100mb line. Im Wireless N connected, 8ft from the box.

[babis3g]

hi all
new here & new with virgin
was with fttc via TT but moving house no fttc at the moment so VM
(PS: i prefer fttc)
to the topic now
i am with 30 mbps package
it shows 32 with speedtest and BT shows 34

[nashmills]

Has anyone tried the numion.com speed test?

I'm on 30Mb and both speedtest.net and the BT one say I'm getting over 30 but Numion shows a "real world" download speed of 2.3Mb (less than the upload speed).

[Jumping]

Has anyone tried the numion.com speed test?

I'm on 30Mb and both speedtest.net and the BT one say I'm getting over 30 but Numion shows a "real world" download speed of 2.3Mb (less than the upload speed).

What do you get in real world downloads? Speed tests are fine and good but they aren't to be relied on as it depends on so many factors like how many people are testing it, how close is the speed test to your location etc etc.

So I would say if your connection feels fine and you get good speed downloading real files is the main thing not what a speedtester says.

[babis3g]

i just had a go with numion.com

it says my download speed is 1,012 kb(126.52 kilobits a second)
after 30 seconds of the test via numion ... i started to download a 330 MB file from you tube
my network meter program started to count about (less more) 450 kBs (kilobytes)
450 kilobytes are 3686.4 kilobits

network meter is counting real measures so my download is almost same as my upload
i still dont think i am close to the XL 30 package but i dont belive numion ... unless the server was tested was out of the UK...but seems very close in reality download speeds

it took me about 15 minutes to download the file and about 15 minutes to upload back at you tube
that means is a way far a 30mb download speed

if was real 30 mb should download in 3 minutes??? the 330MB file
hmmmmm.....


EDIT

i downloaded just now from gamershell.com
(what virgin reccoments in their forums for real test download speed http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-30Mb-broadband/Speed-Problems-Read-this-checklist-first/td-p/889075) ....
a 256MB file and took less than a minute with network meter touching 3.300 MB = 27033.6 kilobits ... so XL 30 is real and numio has problem
you tube is slow server as well (at least from the link downloaded the file)

[roughbeast]

Got exactly 104.43Mb on 3 consecutive tests. Varied between 67Mb and 108Mb during the test. More consistent than speedtest.net so far.

No doubt someone will say the ttb test is more accurate even though it gives me an average of 27Mb. :rolleyes:

Yeah! I know these tests aren't meant to be indicative of anything. "Why bother", I say if your connection is doing what you want it to do.

[Chrysalis]

23.17

26.24 on speedtest.net

yes my downstream performance has improved latetly mostly manages to get over 20mbit now (not same of upstream tho that getting worse).

[Blairhoyle]

I don't trust these sites at all.

[JadeFalcon]

as a true test i always use something like Utorrent and download a linux iso such as ubuntu there's always a ton of seeds on it... on speedtest.net and others i dont seem to get over 30 on my 60meg connection but i can get the ubuntu iso at 7.4MB/s

i think this is why virgin get complaints about not reaching advertised speeds is because they think just because they have 60/100 meg, that every site on the internet should give them full speed, when most wont give that to one connection. dont work like that, thats why i always use a torrent to test available speeds

[Chrysalis]

speedtest.net is multi threaded tho so you have a bad configuration somewhere if you need dozens of threads to max out or it could still be down to congestion as higher threads can hide congestion.

[Nidge41]

Gave me a nice 103MBPS for some strange reason

[craigj2k12]

should give about 105 providing theres no congestion, a bit more on the xxl package

[roughbeast]

as a true test i always use something like Utorrent and download a linux iso such as ubuntu there's always a ton of seeds on it... on speedtest.net and others i dont seem to get over 30 on my 60meg connection but i can get the ubuntu iso at 7.4MB/s

i think this is why virgin get complaints about not reaching advertised speeds is because they think just because they have 60/100 meg, that every site on the internet should give them full speed, when most wont give that to one connection. dont work like that, thats why i always use a torrent to test available speeds

Torrents won't give you a good estimate of speed even when they are up to their max. Your download and up load rate are too dependent on file availability and other people's connections. You would be better off downloading multiple files simultaneously from a know-to-be-good server, then combining their download speeds.

http://gamefiles.virginmedia.com/blueyondergames/

You will need to download up to 8 large files to max out a 100Mb connection. You will get about 2MBPS from each file.

[craigj2k12]

Torrents won't give you a good estimate of speed even when they are up to their max. Your download and up load rate are too dependent on file availability and other people's connections. You would be better off downloading multiple files simultaneously from a know-to-be-good server, then combining their download speeds.

Why not? as long as your outside protocol shaping hours it should give a VERY good picture

[buckleb]

My connection is shown as a pretty consistent 86Mb/s (110Mb product) when tested on that BT site, though it's better than the usual Speedtest result of 30Mb/s.

However, downloading from a fast server (using a download manager) gives me the full-on 13.69MB/s.

[RealDiamond]

Linux distros have High speed servers behind their torrents not just domestic users. (Linux may be open source but has Millionaires funding its PR and websites)
Ive had all 10Mb/s (1.2MB) filled with just 1 peer/connection.
Compaired to other torrents which have needed over 20-30 connections to max out my download.

new site test failed.
speed 2.5Mb/s test locks up.
Speedtest.net
9.987Mb/s

[roughbeast]

Why not? as long as your outside protocol shaping hours it should give a VERY good picture

With torrents, if you are trying to measure your download capacity, it's nothing to do with your traffic shaping or your connection quality. It is to do with the availability of the files your downloading across a number of other people's upload capacities. Granted, that if you get a really good torrent with hundreds or thousands of seeds and few leeches, like you get with JayBob, you will get really quick downloads. However, even before I started to use BTGuard, (proxy via Canada) I never maxed my connection.

[craigj2k12]

the only reason torrents were 'invented' was due to the immense speed and zero redundancy, your reasoning is rubbish

[roughbeast]

the only reason torrents were 'invented' was due to the immense speed and zero redundancy, your reasoning is rubbish

Immense potential speed, rarely achieved, over typical torrent swarms, sufficiently to max out a 100Mb connection.

This is where we came in. I am merely contending that multiple file downloads from a reliable fast server is a better way of testing your full download potential than almost any other means.

We can argue forever and a day about torrents. I swear by them for downloading content I want quickly, but not for speed testing purposes.

[Skie]

Torrents main benefit is that they quite effortlessly distribute the bandwidth across the users rather than have it all come from one bottleneck. Each user does their own bit. It was never about speed, just removing that single point of failure and allowing anyone to distribute large files. Heck, Cohen built it because he could.

And I'd actually expect the superhub to have problems maxing out a torrent that wasnt being seeded by someone with a large pipe. If the average seed speed is low it probably can't handle connecting to over a thousand seeds to achieve the line maximum.

[craigj2k12]

it was never about speed, but your able to download a several gigabits providing you have the capacity and computer up to the job, discounting the fact that the superhub probably cant cope with more then 10 simultaneous connections yes, I see your point, but in modem mode, using a proper router, I would expect torrent downloading will always give far more accurate results than a speed test

Youve also got to remember, which has been mentioned before, VM dont provide the capacity to download at high speeds from everywhere, we all know London speedtest.net server gives better results from VM connections than say from maidenhead, however maidenhead can give results over 600mb from other ISPs, so its a VM problem not the servers fault. I expect every server in the UK on speedtest.net is way more than capable of measuring at 100mbit, the bottleneck lies somewhere with VM

[Jayster]

it was never about speed, but your able to download a several gigabits providing you have the capacity and computer up to the job, discounting the fact that the superhub probably cant cope with more then 10 simultaneous connections yes, I see your point, but in modem mode, using a proper router, I would expect torrent downloading will always give far more accurate results than a speed test

Youve also got to remember, which has been mentioned before, VM dont provide the capacity to download at high speeds from everywhere, we all know London speedtest.net server gives better results from VM connections than say from maidenhead, however maidenhead can give results over 600mb from other ISPs, so its a VM problem not the servers fault. I expect every server in the UK on speedtest.net is way more than capable of measuring at 100mbit, the bottleneck lies somewhere with VM

This is all perfectly fine talking theoretically but in the real world things are much different.

[craigj2k12]

This is all perfectly fine talking theoretically but in the real world things are much different.

When I see your evidence I look forward to picking lookholes -

speedtest to london namesco
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1873993831.png

which was taken after closing utorrent, which I had open before:
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3771/torrentar.png

as you can see its running at 12.4MB/s (i.e. 99.2Mb) - a more accurate reading than the flash based test

[Jayster]

When I see your evidence I look forward to picking lookholes -

speedtest to london namesco
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1873993831.png

which was taken after closing utorrent, which I had open before:
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3771/torrentar.png

as you can see its running at 12.4MB/s (i.e. 99.2Mb) - a more accurate reading than the flash based test

Hows that real world? All I can see is the best case senario eg DHT turned off, no leechers, seedboxes, very small swarm etc.

I suppose my original point was moving away from using torrents for testing purposes, however another problem with that would be you can only do it off peak times.

[Chrysalis]

private trackers with a fast seed are fine for speedtesting. Obviously stuff like piratebay which hardly would have high seeds and filled with leechers wasnt tho, so it depends on the torrent been used.

Using http for speedtesting is bad, for the same reason I have posted before multiple times.

speedtest.net is fine in my view, just because it may get slower it doesnt mean its a bad result, its still accurately telling you there is congestion somewhere on route. The problem seems with speedtest is with 'some' anti virus's proxying the data generating duff results.

[craigj2k12]

speedtest.net is fine in my view, just because it may get slower it doesnt mean its a bad result, its still accurately telling you there is congestion somewhere on route. The problem seems with speedtest is with 'some' anti virus's proxying the data generating duff results.

Thats what i was trying to say, most speedtest.net servers are capable of 500mbit plus, but sometimes VM lines are incapable of hitting 30-40, never mind the full 100. Thats a VM fault, just becuase you can hit full speed to one server doesnt mean there isnt a fault.

I cant remember the minimum requirements to be a speedtest.net server, but I remember them upping the capacity requirements not so long ago, so if you cant hit 100mbit to a UK server, then 9 times out of 10 its VM congestion

[thenry]

BT have added upload test and ping latency

[babis3g]

upgraded to 100 mb

ping at speedtest is between 6-15
and at broadbandMAX speedtester is up to 40...
pingtest web is between 16 - 14 and jitter 6-20

BT show me 70-100 ms ... hmmm
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2012/04/38.jpg

any other tried what ping is showing?

[qasdfdsaq]

It looks like the BT speedtester is showing your latency as the connection round trip time during the speed test.

Speedtest.net shows you your latency when you are not downloading anything.