Goldshell AE Max vs Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE Max | Specification | Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 360.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 1.0 TH/s |
| 3,300 W | Consommation électrique | 480 W |
| 9,166,666.7 J/TH | Efficiency | 480.0 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 13.5 kg | Weight | 2.2 kg |
| 11,260 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,638 BTU/hr |
| 50/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Blake3 |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE Max
Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus
Based on BTC price of $78,235 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus comes out ahead — it takes 4 of 6 (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, rapport qualité-prix). The standout gap is 100% better efficacité (9,166,667 vs 480 J/TH) in the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus's favour. The Goldshell AE Max holds the edge in score de minage domestique and 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 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 277678% more hashrate (0.0 vs 1.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 85% better power draw (3,300 vs 480 W)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 100% better efficacité (9,166,667 vs 480 J/TH)
- Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus 84% better weight (13.5 vs 2.2 kg)
- Goldshell AE Max 587% more heat output (11,260 vs 1,638 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE Max 47% more score de minage domestique (50.0 vs 34.0)
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 Max | Metric | Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus |
|---|---|---|
| $870 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $129 |
| -$7.92 | Daily net profit | -$1.12 |
| -$3,761 | Net after 1 year | -$536 |
| -$6,652 | Net after 2 years | -$944 |
| -$9,542 | 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 MaxScore: 50/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus480.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Goldshell AE Max vs Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus is more profitable at $-1.12/day compared to $-7.92/day for the Goldshell AE Max. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Goldshell AE Max or the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Goldshell AE Max is quieter at 55 dB compared to the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Goldshell AE Max or Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus?
The Goldshell AE Max scores 50/100 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.
Goldshell AE Max vs Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Goldshell AE Max runs at 9,166,666.7 J/TH while the Goldshell AL-BOX II Plus runs at 480.0 J/TH — a difference of 9,166,186.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (9,166,667 vs 480 J/TH).