Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Goldshell E-AE1M
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Specification | Goldshell E-AE1M |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 230.0 MH/s |
| 3,580 W | Consommation électrique | 2,000 W |
| 1,790,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 8,695,652.2 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 45 dB |
| 15.0 kg | Weight | 15.2 kg |
| 12,215 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 6,824 BTU/hr |
| 30/100 | Home Mining Score | 56/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | Zksnark |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)
Goldshell E-AE1M
Based on BTC price of $78,278 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) l'emporte sur 3 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 770% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s). That said, the Goldshell E-AE1M 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
Here is every spec where the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) and Goldshell E-AE1M actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 770% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell E-AE1M 44% better power draw (3,580 vs 2,000 W)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 79% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 8,695,652 J/TH)
- Goldshell E-AE1M 40% better noise (75.0 vs 45.0 dB)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 1% better weight (15.0 vs 15.2 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 79% more heat output (12,215 vs 6,824 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell E-AE1M 87% more score de minage domestique (30.0 vs 56.0)
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 ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Metric | Goldshell E-AE1M |
|---|---|---|
| $5,390 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $630 |
| -$8.59 | Daily net profit | -$4.80 |
| -$8,526 | Net after 1 year | -$2,382 |
| -$11,662 | Net after 2 years | -$4,134 |
| -$14,798 | Net after 3 years | -$5,886 |
| 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 E-AE1MScore: 56/100. 45 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)1,790,000.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) or the Goldshell E-AE1M?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell E-AE1M is more profitable at $-4.80/day compared to $-8.59/day for the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) or Goldshell E-AE1M?
The Goldshell E-AE1M is quieter at 45 dB compared to the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) or Goldshell E-AE1M?
The Goldshell E-AE1M scores 56/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Goldshell E-AE1M: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) runs at 1,790,000.0 J/TH while the Goldshell E-AE1M runs at 8,695,652.2 J/TH — a difference of 6,905,652.2 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 79% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 8,695,652 J/TH).