Goldshell AE Card vs Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE Card | Specification | Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 5.5 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 1.0 TH/s |
| 65 W | Consommation électrique | 480 W |
| 11,818,181.8 J/TH | Efficiency | 480.0 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 0.3 kg | Weight | 2.2 kg |
| 222 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,638 BTU/hr |
| 71/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Blake3 |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE Card
Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus
Based on BTC price of $78,236 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus l'emporte sur 3 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 18181718% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.0 TH/s). That said, the Goldshell AE Card 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 Card and Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 18181718% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell AE Card 86% better power draw (65.0 vs 480.0 W)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 100% better efficacité (11,818,182 vs 480 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE Card 85% better weight (0.3 vs 2.2 kg)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 638% more heat output (222 vs 1,638 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE Card 109% more score de minage domestique (71.0 vs 34.0)
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 Card | Metric | Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus |
|---|---|---|
| $99 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $129 |
| -$0.16 | Daily net profit | -$1.12 |
| -$156 | Net after 1 year | -$536 |
| -$213 | Net after 2 years | -$944 |
| -$270 | Net after 3 years | -$1,351 |
| 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 CardScore: 71/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus480.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Goldshell AE Card or the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AE Card is more profitable at $-0.16/day compared to $-1.12/day for the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Goldshell AE Card or Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
The Goldshell AE Card is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 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 Card or the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
The Goldshell AE Card scores 71/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 34/100 for the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus). 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 Card and Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus on J/TH?
The Goldshell AE Card runs at 11,818,181.8 J/TH while the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus runs at 480.0 J/TH — a difference of 11,817,701.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (11,818,182 vs 480 J/TH).