Passer au contenu

Nous améliorons nos opérations pour mieux vous servir. Les commandes sont expédiées normalement depuis Laval, QC. Questions? Contactez-nous

Bitcoin accepté au paiement  |  Expédié depuis Laval, QC, Canada  |  Soutien expert depuis 2016

Iceriver AL3

Iceriver AL3

Taux de hachage 15.0 TH/s Puissance 3,500 W Efficiency 233.3 J/TH
VS
Iceriver KS5L

Iceriver KS5L

Taux de hachage 12.0 TH/s Puissance 3,400 W Efficiency 283.3 J/TH

Iceriver AL3 vs Iceriver KS5L

Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.

Specifications Comparison

Iceriver AL3 Specification Iceriver KS5L
15.0 TH/s Taux de hachage 12.0 TH/s
3,500 W Consommation électrique 3,400 W
233.3 J/TH Efficiency 283.3 J/TH
75 dB Niveau de bruit 75 dB
16.0 kg Weight 15.0 kg
11,942 BTU/hr BTU Output 11,601 BTU/hr
36/100 Home Mining Score 36/100
Release Year
Blake3 Algorithme KHeavyHash
IceRiver Manufacturer IceRiver

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

Iceriver AL3

Daily Revenue 0.00000690 BTC $0.54
Daily Electricity -$8.40
Daily Profit -$7.86
Monthly -$235.81
Yearly -$2,869.01

Iceriver KS5L

Daily Revenue 0.00000552 BTC $0.43
Daily Electricity -$8.16
Daily Profit -$7.73
Monthly -$231.85
Yearly -$2,820.81

Based on BTC price of $78,186 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Run the numbers across every spec and the Iceriver AL3 edges it: 2 of 4 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate). The standout gap is 25% more hashrate (15.0 vs 12.0 TH/s) in the Iceriver AL3's favour. The Iceriver KS5L claws back ground on consommation électrique and rapport qualité-prix. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.

Winner: Iceriver AL3 — l'emporte sur 2 des 4 facteurs

Spec Deltas

Here is every spec where the Iceriver AL3 and Iceriver KS5L actually differ, with the gap quantified:

  • Iceriver AL3 25% more hashrate (15.0 vs 12.0 TH/s)
  • Iceriver KS5L 3% better power draw (3,500 vs 3,400 W)
  • Iceriver AL3 18% better efficacité (233 vs 283 J/TH)
  • Iceriver KS5L 6% better weight (16.0 vs 15.0 kg)
  • Iceriver AL3 3% more heat output (11,942 vs 11,601 BTU/hr)

Cost & ROI Over Time

Sticker price versus what the miner actually earns back: the table below projects cumulative net profit at a $0.10/kWh electricity rate.

Iceriver AL3 Metric Iceriver KS5L
$1,550 Upfront cost (MSRP) $400
-$7.86 Daily net profit -$7.73
-$4,419 Net after 1 year -$3,221
-$7,288 Net after 2 years -$6,042
-$10,157 Net after 3 years -$8,862
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

Tie

Both miners produce similar daily profit.

Best for Home Mining

Tie

Both miners are equally suitable for home use.

Best for Efficiency

Iceriver AL3

233.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which makes more money, the Iceriver AL3 or the Iceriver KS5L?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver KS5L is more profitable at $-7.73/day compared to $-7.86/day for the Iceriver AL3. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

Is the Iceriver AL3 or the Iceriver KS5L better for noise-sensitive spaces?

Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.

For mining at home, should I pick the Iceriver AL3 or the Iceriver KS5L?

Both miners score similarly on our Home Mining Score. Consider your specific constraints (noise tolerance, available power, heat needs) to decide.

What is the efficiency difference between Iceriver AL3 and Iceriver KS5L?

The Iceriver AL3 runs at 233.3 J/TH while the Iceriver KS5L runs at 283.3 J/TH — a difference of 50.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 18% better efficacité (233 vs 283 J/TH).