Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Specification | Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 54.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 8.0 TH/s |
| 530 W | Consommation électrique | 2,020 W |
| 9,814,814.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 252.5 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Niveau de bruit | 55 dB |
| 3.0 kg | Weight | 13.1 kg |
| 1,808 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 6,892 BTU/hr |
| 65/100 | Home Mining Score | 54/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Blake2b-sia |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX II
Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th)
Based on BTC price of $73,537 and current network difficulty as of May 30, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) l'emporte sur 2 des 5 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate). Where it pulls away hardest is 14814715% more hashrate (0.0 vs 8.0 TH/s). The Goldshell AE-BOX II claws back ground on 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
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Goldshell AE-BOX II and Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) sit on each measurable spec:
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) 14814715% more hashrate (0.0 vs 8.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 74% better power draw (530 vs 2,020 W)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) 100% better efficacité (9,814,815 vs 253 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 36% better noise (35.0 vs 55.0 dB)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 77% better weight (3.0 vs 13.1 kg)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) 281% more heat output (1,808 vs 6,892 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX II 20% more score de minage domestique (65.0 vs 54.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Hardware cost is only half the story — here is how each miner's upfront price plays out against cumulative profit at a $0.10/kWh rate.
| Goldshell AE-BOX II | Metric | Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$1.27 | Daily net profit | -$4.58 |
| -$584 | Net after 1 year | -$1,672 |
| -$1,049 | Net after 2 years | -$3,345 |
| -$1,513 | Net after 3 years | -$5,017 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | — |
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 SC5 Pro (8.8Th)252.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Goldshell AE-BOX II or Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) more profitable?
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 $-4.58/day for the Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Goldshell AE-BOX II or the Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) at 55 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 SC5 Pro (8.8Th)?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 54/100 for the Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Goldshell AE-BOX II vs Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th): how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Goldshell AE-BOX II runs at 9,814,814.8 J/TH while the Goldshell SC5 Pro (8.8Th) runs at 252.5 J/TH — a difference of 9,814,562.3 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 253 J/TH).