Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer E9 Pro | Specification | Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 3,680.0 MH/s | Taux de hachage | 13.5 TH/s |
| 2,200 W | Consommation électrique | 1,310 W |
| 597,826.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 97.0 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 14.2 kg | Weight | 4,200.0 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 4,470 BTU/hr |
| 40/100 | Home Mining Score | 31/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| EtHash | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer E9 Pro
Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)
Based on BTC price of $78,143 and current network difficulty as of May 17, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) l'emporte sur 4 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 100% better efficacité (597,826.1 vs 97.0 J/TH). That said, the Antminer E9 Pro isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins 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 Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) sit on each measurable spec:
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 366748% more hashrate (0.0 vs 13.5 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 40% better power draw (2,200 vs 1,310 W)
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 100% better efficacité (597,826.1 vs 97.0 J/TH)
- Antminer E9 Pro 100% better weight (14.2 vs 4,200.0 kg)
- Antminer E9 Pro 68% more heat output (7,506 vs 4,470 BTU/hr)
- Antminer E9 Pro 29% more score de minage domestique (40.0 vs 31.0)
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.
| Antminer E9 Pro | Metric | Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $3,000 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $600 |
| -$5.28 | Daily net profit | -$2.66 |
| -$4,927 | Net after 1 year | -$1,570 |
| -$6,854 | Net after 2 years | -$2,541 |
| -$8,781 | Net after 3 years | -$3,511 |
| 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 S9k (13.5Th)97.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th): which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) is more profitable at $-2.66/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 Antminer E9 Pro or Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)?
The Antminer E9 Pro is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Antminer E9 Pro vs Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th): which fits a residential setup better?
The Antminer E9 Pro scores 40/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Antminer E9 Pro and Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) on J/TH?
The Antminer E9 Pro runs at 597,826.1 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) runs at 97.0 J/TH — a difference of 597,729.1 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficacité (597,826.1 vs 97.0 J/TH).