Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) vs iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) | Specification | iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) |
|---|---|---|
| 166.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 3.5 TH/s |
| 3,154 W | Consommation électrique | 170 W |
| 19.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 48.6 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 35 dB |
| 16,100.0 kg | Weight | 2.2 kg |
| 10,761 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 580 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 68/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Blake2s | Algorithme | Blake2s |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | iBeLink |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th)
iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH)
Based on BTC price of $76,880 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) comes out ahead — it takes 2 of 5 (efficacité, hashrate). The standout gap is 4643% more hashrate (166.0 vs 3.5 TH/s) in the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th)'s favour. The iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) claws back ground on consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. 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 KA3 (166Th) and iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) 4643% more hashrate (166.0 vs 3.5 TH/s)
- iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) 95% better power draw (3,154 vs 170 W)
- Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) 61% better efficacité (19.0 vs 48.6 J/TH)
- iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) 100% better weight (16,100.0 vs 2.2 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) 1755% more heat output (10,761 vs 580 BTU/hr)
- iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) 209% more score de minage domestique (22.0 vs 68.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) | Metric | iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) |
|---|---|---|
| $1,399 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$1.70 | Daily net profit | -$0.28 |
| -$2,018 | Net after 1 year | -$104 |
| -$2,638 | Net after 2 years | -$207 |
| -$3,257 | Net after 3 years | -$311 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | — |
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
iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH)Score: 68/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th)19.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) vs iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH): which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) is more profitable at $-0.28/day compared to $-1.70/day for the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) or the iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) or iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH)?
The iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) scores 68/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th)). 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 Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) and iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH)?
The Bitmain Antminer KA3 (166Th) runs at 19.0 J/TH while the iBeLink K3 mini (3.5TH) runs at 48.6 J/TH — a difference of 29.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 61% better efficacité (19.0 vs 48.6 J/TH).