Originally Posted by craigj2k12 (Post 35409421)

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

Originally Posted by Jayster (Post 35409425)

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

Originally Posted by craigj2k12 (Post 35409426)

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

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35409502)

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.