Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell CK-BOX
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh | Specification | Goldshell CK-BOX |
|---|---|---|
| 44.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 1.1 TH/s |
| 460 W | Consommation électrique | 215 W |
| 10,454,545.5 J/TH | Efficiency | 204.8 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Niveau de bruit | 45 dB |
| 2.6 kg | Weight | 2.0 kg |
| 1,570 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 734 BTU/hr |
| 69/100 | Home Mining Score | 59/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Eaglesong |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh
Goldshell CK-BOX
Based on BTC price of $77,900 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Goldshell CK-BOX edges it: 4 of 6 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 100% better efficacité (10,454,545 vs 205 J/TH). That said, the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh and Goldshell CK-BOX diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell CK-BOX 2386264% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.1 TH/s)
- Goldshell CK-BOX 53% better power draw (460 vs 215 W)
- Goldshell CK-BOX 100% better efficacité (10,454,545 vs 205 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 22% better noise (35.0 vs 45.0 dB)
- Goldshell CK-BOX 23% better weight (2.6 vs 2.0 kg)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 114% more heat output (1,570 vs 734 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 17% more score de minage domestique (69.0 vs 59.0)
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 Pro 44Mh | Metric | Goldshell CK-BOX |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $399 |
| -$1.10 | Daily net profit | -$0.48 |
| -$523 | Net after 1 year | -$574 |
| -$926 | Net after 2 years | -$748 |
| -$1,329 | Net after 3 years | -$923 |
| 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 CK-BOX204.8 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh or the Goldshell CK-BOX?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell CK-BOX is more profitable at $-0.48/day compared to $-1.10/day for the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell CK-BOX: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell CK-BOX at 45 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell CK-BOX: which fits a residential setup better?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh scores 69/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 59/100 for the Goldshell CK-BOX). 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 CK-BOX on J/TH?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh runs at 10,454,545.5 J/TH while the Goldshell CK-BOX runs at 204.8 J/TH — a difference of 10,454,340.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (10,454,545 vs 205 J/TH).