Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KS2
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Quick verdict
For most buyers the Iceriver KS2 is the stronger pick — it leads on 5 of 5 head-to-head factors. The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) runs 2.0 GH/s; the Iceriver KS2 runs 2.0 TH/s.
Specs verified against the D-Central Mining Bible \xc2\xb7 June 2026
Specifications Comparison
| Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Specification | Iceriver KS2 |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 2.0 TH/s |
| 3,580 W | Consommation électrique | 1,200 W |
| 1,790,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 600.0 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 15.0 kg | Weight | 14.9 kg |
| 12,215 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 4,094 BTU/hr |
| 8/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithme | KHeavyHash |
| IceRiver | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)
Iceriver KS2
Based on BTC price of $64,648 and current network difficulty as of Jun 17, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Iceriver KS2 comes out ahead — it takes 5 of 5 (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 600 J/TH). Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) and Iceriver KS2 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Iceriver KS2 99900% more hashrate (0.0 vs 2.0 TH/s)
- Iceriver KS2 66% better power draw (3,580 vs 1,200 W)
- Iceriver KS2 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 600 J/TH)
- Iceriver KS2 1% better weight (15.0 vs 14.9 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 198% more heat output (12,215 vs 4,094 BTU/hr)
- Iceriver KS2 175% more score de minage domestique (8.0 vs 22.0)
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 ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) | Metric | Iceriver KS2 |
|---|---|---|
| $5,390 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $399 |
| -$8.59 | Daily net profit | -$2.81 |
| -$8,526 | Net after 1 year | -$1,426 |
| -$11,662 | Net after 2 years | -$2,454 |
| -$14,798 | Net after 3 years | -$3,481 |
| 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 KS2Score: 22/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver KS2600.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Foire aux questions
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KS2: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver KS2 is more profitable at $-2.81/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.
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) vs Iceriver KS2: which runs at a lower noise level?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
Which is better for home mining, the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) or Iceriver KS2?
The Iceriver KS2 scores 22/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 8/100 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.
What is the efficiency difference between Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) and Iceriver KS2?
The Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) runs at 1,790,000.0 J/TH while the Iceriver KS2 runs at 600.0 J/TH — a difference of 1,789,400.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (1,790,000 vs 600 J/TH).