Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell AE Max II
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh | Specification | Goldshell AE Max II |
|---|---|---|
| 44.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 540.0 MH/s |
| 460 W | Consommation électrique | 3,200 W |
| 10,454,545.5 J/TH | Efficiency | 5,925,925.9 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Niveau de bruit | 85 dB |
| 2.6 kg | Weight | 12.5 kg |
| 1,570 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 10,918 BTU/hr |
| 69/100 | Home Mining Score | 29/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Zksnark |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh
Goldshell AE Max II
Based on BTC price of $78,186 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Le Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh et le Goldshell AE Max II sont très proches sur l'ensemble de nos facteurs de notation, sans avantage décisif pour l'un ou l'autre. Votre choix devrait dépendre de vos priorités spécifiques — consultez les spécifications et l'analyse de rentabilité ci-dessus.
Spec Deltas
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh and Goldshell AE Max II diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell AE Max II 1127% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 86% better power draw (460 vs 3,200 W)
- Goldshell AE Max II 43% better efficacité (10,454,545 vs 5,925,926 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 59% better noise (35.0 vs 85.0 dB)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 79% better weight (2.6 vs 12.5 kg)
- Goldshell AE Max II 596% more heat output (1,570 vs 10,918 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 138% more score de minage domestique (69.0 vs 29.0)
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 Pro 44Mh | Metric | Goldshell AE Max II |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,050 |
| -$1.10 | Daily net profit | -$7.68 |
| -$523 | Net after 1 year | -$3,853 |
| -$926 | Net after 2 years | -$6,656 |
| -$1,329 | Net after 3 years | -$9,460 |
| 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 Pro 44MhScore: 69/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell AE Max II5,925,925.9 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell AE Max II: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh is more profitable at $-1.10/day compared to $-7.68/day for the Goldshell AE Max II. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh or the Goldshell AE Max II better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell AE Max II at 85 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh or Goldshell AE Max II?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh scores 69/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 29/100 for the Goldshell AE Max II). 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 Pro 44Mh and Goldshell AE Max II on J/TH?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh runs at 10,454,545.5 J/TH while the Goldshell AE Max II runs at 5,925,925.9 J/TH — a difference of 4,528,619.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 43% better efficacité (10,454,545 vs 5,925,926 J/TH).