Goldshell AE Max II vs Goldshell CK Box II
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE Max II | Specification | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| 540.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 2.1 TH/s |
| 3,200 W | Consommation électrique | 400 W |
| 5,925,925.9 J/TH | Efficiency | 190.5 J/TH |
| 85 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 12.5 kg | Weight | 3.0 kg |
| 10,918 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,365 BTU/hr |
| 29/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Eaglesong |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE Max II
Goldshell CK Box II
Based on BTC price of $77,900 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Goldshell CK Box II, which leads on 5 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, rapport qualité-prix). The standout gap is 100% better efficacité (5,925,926 vs 190 J/TH) in the Goldshell CK Box II's favour. The Goldshell AE Max II claws back ground on niveau sonore. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
The Goldshell AE Max II and Goldshell CK Box II diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell CK Box II 388789% more hashrate (0.0 vs 2.1 TH/s)
- Goldshell CK Box II 88% better power draw (3,200 vs 400 W)
- Goldshell CK Box II 100% better efficacité (5,925,926 vs 190 J/TH)
- Goldshell CK Box II 76% better weight (12.5 vs 3.0 kg)
- Goldshell AE Max II 700% more heat output (10,918 vs 1,365 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell CK Box II 17% more score de minage domestique (29.0 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 Max II | Metric | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| $1,050 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $246 |
| -$7.68 | Daily net profit | -$0.88 |
| -$3,853 | Net after 1 year | -$569 |
| -$6,656 | Net after 2 years | -$892 |
| -$9,460 | Net after 3 years | -$1,215 |
| 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 CK Box IIScore: 34/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell CK Box II190.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Goldshell AE Max II vs Goldshell CK Box II: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell CK Box II is more profitable at $-0.88/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.
Goldshell AE Max II vs Goldshell CK Box II: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Goldshell AE Max II is quieter at 85 dB compared to the Goldshell CK Box II at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Goldshell AE Max II vs Goldshell CK Box II: which fits a residential setup better?
The Goldshell CK Box II scores 34/100 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.
What is the efficiency difference between Goldshell AE Max II and Goldshell CK Box II?
The Goldshell AE Max II runs at 5,925,925.9 J/TH while the Goldshell CK Box II runs at 190.5 J/TH — a difference of 5,925,735.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (5,925,926 vs 190 J/TH).