Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) vs Antminer E9 Pro
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) | Specification | Antminer E9 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 815.0 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 3,680.0 MH/s |
| 1,275 W | Consommation électrique | 2,200 W |
| 1,564.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 597,826.1 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 4,200.0 kg | Weight | 14.2 kg |
| 4,350 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 7,506 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 40/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Blake2b | Algorithme | EtHash |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh)
Antminer E9 Pro
Based on BTC price of $78,236 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) comes out ahead — it takes 4 of 6 (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 100% better efficacité (1,564 vs 597,826 J/TH). The Antminer E9 Pro holds the edge in 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
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) and Antminer E9 Pro sit on each measurable spec:
- Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) 22047% more hashrate (0.8 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) 42% better power draw (1,275 vs 2,200 W)
- Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) 100% better efficacité (1,564 vs 597,826 J/TH)
- Antminer E9 Pro 100% better weight (4,200.0 vs 14.2 kg)
- Antminer E9 Pro 73% more heat output (4,350 vs 7,506 BTU/hr)
- Antminer E9 Pro 29% more score de minage domestique (31.0 vs 40.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) | Metric | Antminer E9 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| $29,718 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $3,000 |
| -$3.03 | Daily net profit | -$5.28 |
| -$30,824 | Net after 1 year | -$4,927 |
| -$31,930 | Net after 2 years | -$6,854 |
| -$33,037 | Net after 3 years | -$8,781 |
| 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
Antminer E9 ProScore: 40/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh)1,564.4 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) vs Antminer E9 Pro: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) is more profitable at $-3.03/day compared to $-5.28/day for the Antminer E9 Pro. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) or Antminer E9 Pro?
The Antminer E9 Pro is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) or the Antminer E9 Pro?
The Antminer E9 Pro scores 40/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) and Antminer E9 Pro on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) runs at 1,564.4 J/TH while the Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH — a difference of 596,261.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (1,564 vs 597,826 J/TH).