The performance of these drive will inevitably not be close to that of a desktop drive, which rotates at 7,200rpm. The drive inside the Sony is a Seagate ST650211 with a rotational speed of 3,600rpm. The drive inside the Iomega is a ST68022C and while on the web this is listed as a 3,600rpm drive the Iomega packaging states 4,200rpm. I found that as the drives filled up the performance dropped. While this is true of all hard disks it was especially noticeable on these drives. On the Sony,moving 403MB of images took around three minutes when practically empty, but four minutes 47 seconds when half full.
The Iomegaâ€™s greater capacity suggests that it is a newer drive and as you can see from the figures it outperforms the Sony in all test bar one. It significantly outperformed the Sony in the write tests, being almost twice as fast when copying 403MB of images to the drive, and much faster in both mixed and the single file as well.
The read times are not as overwhelming only being slightly faster at the mixed and the single file test, while it actually loses out in the Images read test.
Despite this, itâ€™s a pretty convincing overall victory for the Iomega on the performance front.
Considering the capacity, both these drives are good value compared to flash-based USB keys. Overall thogugh, it's a double whammy for the Iomega. Not only does it offer 3GB more capacity for similar money, making it much better value but itâ€™s a faster drive as well. The backup software also had the potential of being niftier but the issues with its uncertain future status blot the copy book somewhat.
However, while thereâ€™s no doubt that the Sony is a nice piece of hardware to look at and to use, when it comes to spending your money, the Iomega is by far the wiser choice.