Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) vs Jasminer X16-Q pro
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) | Specification | Jasminer X16-Q pro |
|---|---|---|
| 2.4 GH/s | Taux de hachage | 2.1 GH/s |
| 2,556 W | Consommation électrique | 520 W |
| 1,065,000.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 253,658.5 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 40 dB |
| 14,200.0 kg | Weight | 10.0 kg |
| 8,721 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,774 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 65/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithme | EtHash |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Jasminer |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh)
Jasminer X16-Q pro
Based on BTC price of $77,864 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Jasminer X16-Q pro l'emporte sur 4 des 5 facteurs (efficacité, consommation électrique, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). Where it pulls away hardest is 80% better power draw (2,556 vs 520 W). The Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) claws back ground on rapport qualité-prix. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) and Jasminer X16-Q pro actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) 17% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Jasminer X16-Q pro 80% better power draw (2,556 vs 520 W)
- Jasminer X16-Q pro 76% better efficacité (1,065,000 vs 253,659 J/TH)
- Jasminer X16-Q pro 100% better weight (14,200.0 vs 10.0 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) 392% more heat output (8,721 vs 1,774 BTU/hr)
- Jasminer X16-Q pro 195% more score de minage domestique (22.0 vs 65.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Hardware cost is only half the story — here is how each miner's upfront price plays out against cumulative profit at a $0.10/kWh rate.
| Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) | Metric | Jasminer X16-Q pro |
|---|---|---|
| $1,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,249 |
| -$6.13 | Daily net profit | -$1.25 |
| -$3,239 | Net after 1 year | -$1,704 |
| -$5,478 | Net after 2 years | -$2,160 |
| -$7,717 | Net after 3 years | -$2,615 |
| 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
Jasminer X16-Q proScore: 65/100. 40 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Jasminer X16-Q pro253,658.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) vs Jasminer X16-Q pro: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Jasminer X16-Q pro is more profitable at $-1.25/day compared to $-6.13/day for the Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) or the Jasminer X16-Q pro better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Jasminer X16-Q pro is quieter at 40 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) vs Jasminer X16-Q pro: which fits a residential setup better?
The Jasminer X16-Q pro scores 65/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) vs Jasminer X16-Q pro: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Bitmain Antminer E9 (2.4Gh) runs at 1,065,000.0 J/TH while the Jasminer X16-Q pro runs at 253,658.5 J/TH — a difference of 811,341.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 76% better efficacité (1,065,000 vs 253,659 J/TH).