Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 62.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Consommation électrique | 3,286 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 53.0 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 14.0 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,212 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | Bolon Miner |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)
Based on BTC price of $77,848 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) comes out ahead — it takes 2 of 5 (efficacité, hashrate). Its biggest concrete edge: 343% more hashrate (14.0 vs 62.0 TH/s). That said, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique and 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 Loki Edition (S9) and Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) sit on each measurable spec:
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 343% more hashrate (14.0 vs 62.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 59% better power draw (1,350 vs 3,286 W)
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 45% better efficacité (96.4 vs 53.0 J/TH)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 57% better weight (6.0 vs 14.0 kg)
- Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) 143% more heat output (4,606 vs 11,212 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 168% more score de minage domestique (59.0 vs 22.0)
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 Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$2.74 | Daily net profit | -$5.67 |
| -$1,349 | Net after 1 year | -$2,068 |
| -$2,348 | Net after 2 years | -$4,136 |
| -$3,348 | Net after 3 years | -$6,203 |
| 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
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)Score: 59/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)53.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Bolon Miner B11 (62Th): which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is more profitable at $-2.74/day compared to $-5.67/day for the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is quieter at 55 dB compared to the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Bolon Miner B11 (62Th): which fits a residential setup better?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th)). 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 Loki Edition (S9) and Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) on J/TH?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the Bolon Miner B11 (62Th) runs at 53.0 J/TH — a difference of 43.4 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 45% better efficacité (96.4 vs 53.0 J/TH).