Product comparison · 2 external hard drives

iStorage 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0 vs iStorage 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB

Key differences

HDD capacity
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:160 GB
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:80 GB
HDD speed
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:5400 RPM
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:7200 RPM
Storage drive average seek time
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:12 ms
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:9 ms
Width
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:22.2 mm
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:196 mm
Depth
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:133 mm
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:32 mm
Height
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:76 mm
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:127 mm
Weight
- 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0:225 g
- 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB:900 g

Differences highlightedShow differences only

Comparison of 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0, 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB
21 specifications	A iStorage 2.5" Eco Drive 160GB USB 2.0 View product	B iStorage 3.5" Eco Drive 80GB View product
Hard drive3 differ
HDD capacityDiffers	160 GB	80 GB
HDD speedDiffers	5400 RPM	7200 RPM
Storage drive average seek timeDiffers	12 ms	9 ms
HDD sizeKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	3.5"
Storage drive buffer sizeKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	8 MB
Featuresidentical
Plug and PlayKnown for one	Yes	Unknown — not stated by the source
CertificationKnown for one	RoHS	Unknown — not stated by the source
Weight & dimensions4 differ
WidthDiffers	22.2 mm	196 mm
DepthDiffers	133 mm	32 mm
HeightDiffers	76 mm	127 mm
WeightDiffers	225 g	900 g

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.