Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell AL BOX III
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Specification | Goldshell AL BOX III |
|---|---|---|
| 54.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 1.3 TH/s |
| 530 W | Consommation électrique | 600 W |
| 9,814,814.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 480.0 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 3.0 kg | Weight | 2.2 kg |
| 1,808 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 2,047 BTU/hr |
| 65/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Blake3 |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX II
Goldshell AL BOX III
Based on BTC price of $78,185 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Goldshell AL BOX III comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 6 (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 2314715% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.3 TH/s). That said, the Goldshell AE-BOX II isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Goldshell AE-BOX II and Goldshell AL BOX III diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell AL BOX III 2314715% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.3 TH/s)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 12% better power draw (530 vs 600 W)
- Goldshell AL BOX III 100% better efficacité (9,814,815 vs 480 J/TH)
- Goldshell AL BOX III 25% better weight (3.0 vs 2.2 kg)
- Goldshell AL BOX III 13% more heat output (1,808 vs 2,047 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 117% more score de minage domestique (65.0 vs 30.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
A miner pays for itself in profit, not specs. These projections track upfront cost against one, two and three years of net earnings at $0.10/kWh.
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Metric | Goldshell AL BOX III |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $139 |
| -$1.27 | Daily net profit | -$1.40 |
| -$584 | Net after 1 year | -$648 |
| -$1,049 | Net after 2 years | -$1,157 |
| -$1,513 | Net after 3 years | -$1,667 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) |
Projections assume continuous operation, a flat $0.10/kWh rate, and no hardware degradation, pool fees, or BTC price change. Real-world ROI varies.
Best For...
Best for Profitability
TieBoth miners produce similar daily profit.
Best for Home Mining
Goldshell AE-BOX IIScore: 65/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell AL BOX III480.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Goldshell AE-BOX II or the Goldshell AL BOX III?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AE-BOX II is more profitable at $-1.27/day compared to $-1.40/day for the Goldshell AL BOX III. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell AL BOX III: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell AL BOX III at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Goldshell AE-BOX II or the Goldshell AL BOX III?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Goldshell AL BOX III). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Goldshell AE-BOX II and Goldshell AL BOX III on J/TH?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II runs at 9,814,814.8 J/TH while the Goldshell AL BOX III runs at 480.0 J/TH — a difference of 9,814,334.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (9,814,815 vs 480 J/TH).