Iceriver AE2 720Mh vs Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver AE2 720Mh | Specification | Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE |
|---|---|---|
| 720.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 2.0 TH/s |
| 1,300 W | Consommation électrique | 500 W |
| 1,805,555.6 J/TH | Efficiency | 250.0 J/TH |
| 60 dB | Niveau de bruit | 45 dB |
| 15.5 kg | Weight | 5.0 kg |
| 4,436 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,706 BTU/hr |
| 52/100 | Home Mining Score | 62/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Blake3 |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver AE2 720Mh
Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE
Based on BTC price of $78,185 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE l'emporte sur 6 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 100% better efficacité (1,805,556 vs 250 J/TH). Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Iceriver AE2 720Mh and Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE 277678% more hashrate (0.0 vs 2.0 TH/s)
- Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE 62% better power draw (1,300 vs 500 W)
- Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE 100% better efficacité (1,805,556 vs 250 J/TH)
- Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE 25% better noise (60.0 vs 45.0 dB)
- Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE 68% better weight (15.5 vs 5.0 kg)
- Iceriver AE2 720Mh 160% more heat output (4,436 vs 1,706 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE 19% more score de minage domestique (52.0 vs 62.0)
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.
| Iceriver AE2 720Mh | Metric | Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE |
|---|---|---|
| $1,595 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $538 |
| -$3.12 | Daily net profit | -$1.13 |
| -$2,734 | Net after 1 year | -$950 |
| -$3,873 | Net after 2 years | -$1,361 |
| -$5,011 | Net after 3 years | -$1,773 |
| 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
Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITEScore: 62/100. 45 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE250.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Iceriver AE2 720Mh or Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE is more profitable at $-1.13/day compared to $-3.12/day for the Iceriver AE2 720Mh. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Iceriver AE2 720Mh vs Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE is quieter at 45 dB compared to the Iceriver AE2 720Mh at 60 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Iceriver AE2 720Mh vs Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE: which fits a residential setup better?
The Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE scores 62/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 52/100 for the Iceriver AE2 720Mh). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Iceriver AE2 720Mh vs Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Iceriver AE2 720Mh runs at 1,805,555.6 J/TH while the Iceriver ALPH AL2 LITE runs at 250.0 J/TH — a difference of 1,805,305.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (1,805,556 vs 250 J/TH).