Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M79
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) | Specification | MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 |
|---|---|---|
| 50.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 920.0 TH/s |
| 1,975 W | Consommation électrique | 13,340 W |
| 39.5 J/TH | Efficiency | 14.5 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 50 dB |
| 9,500.0 kg | Weight | 37.0 kg |
| 6,739 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 45,516 BTU/hr |
| 28/100 | Home Mining Score | 44/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th)
MicroBT WhatsMiner M79
Based on BTC price of $78,194 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 l'emporte sur 4 des 5 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). Its biggest concrete edge: 1740% more hashrate (50.0 vs 920.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) holds the edge in consommation électrique. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) and MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 1740% more hashrate (50.0 vs 920.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) 85% better power draw (1,975 vs 13,340 W)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 63% better efficacité (39.5 vs 14.5 J/TH)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 100% better weight (9,500.0 vs 37.0 kg)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 575% more heat output (6,739 vs 45,516 BTU/hr)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 57% more score de minage domestique (28.0 vs 44.0)
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 S17 Pro (50Th) | Metric | MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 |
|---|---|---|
| $413 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$2.94 | Daily net profit | $1.09 |
| -$1,486 | Net after 1 year | +$397 |
| -$2,560 | Net after 2 years | +$795 |
| -$3,633 | Net after 3 years | +$1,192 |
| 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
MicroBT WhatsMiner M79$4.03/day higher profit at current rates.
Best for Home Mining
MicroBT WhatsMiner M79Score: 44/100. 50 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
MicroBT WhatsMiner M7914.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M79: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 is more profitable at $1.09/day compared to $-2.94/day for the Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) or MicroBT WhatsMiner M79?
The MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 is quieter at 50 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M79: which fits a residential setup better?
The MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 scores 44/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 28/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M79: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro (50Th) runs at 39.5 J/TH while the MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 runs at 14.5 J/TH — a difference of 25.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 63% better efficacité (39.5 vs 14.5 J/TH).