Yeah. That’s just pure [censored] isn’t it. I mean fast.com just told me I’m getting 1.2 Gbps. Utter tosh.

I only use fast.com in a private / incognito browser; on computers without third party AV/security suite. I consider those suits “snake oil” from an industry that knows its heading for irrelevance.

They did a test via a standard test download rather than a speed test that hit 302Mbps - this wouldn't be impacted by AV as task manager is specifically looking at throughput on the interface which suggests they do have a gigabit NIC.

In reply to a post by Wafter:

So my question is, is it reasonable to have lower download speeds on a lower spec computer?

Late, but the simple answer is "maybe".

In short, it comes down to how much resources your hardware has, and that's not necessarily down to 'fast' or 'slow' hardware, so much as system config too.

Run a Userbench benchmark and see what aspects of your system are slow (if any). High levels of background CPU will be a telling sign of your system resources being leeched from apps, programs etc. It might be that it'll come down to faster hardware, but it might come down to servicing the software running on said system and making it less bloaty.