Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M70
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) | Specification | MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 |
|---|---|---|
| 13.5 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 236.0 TH/s |
| 1,310 W | Consommation électrique | 3,422 W |
| 97.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 14.5 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 4,200.0 kg | Weight | 13.5 kg |
| 4,470 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,676 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)
MicroBT WhatsMiner M70
Based on BTC price of $76,901 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 l'emporte sur 4 des 5 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). The standout gap is 1648% more hashrate (13.5 vs 236.0 TH/s) in the MicroBT WhatsMiner M70's favour. The Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) holds the edge in consommation électrique. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) and MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 sit on each measurable spec:
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 1648% more hashrate (13.5 vs 236.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 62% better power draw (1,310 vs 3,422 W)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 85% better efficacité (97.0 vs 14.5 J/TH)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 100% better weight (4,200.0 vs 13.5 kg)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 161% more heat output (4,470 vs 11,676 BTU/hr)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 16% more score de minage domestique (31.0 vs 36.0)
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 S9k (13.5Th) | Metric | MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 |
|---|---|---|
| $600 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$2.67 | Daily net profit | $0.14 |
| -$1,573 | Net after 1 year | +$51 |
| -$2,546 | Net after 2 years | +$101 |
| -$3,520 | Net after 3 years | +$152 |
| 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 M70$2.81/day higher profit at current rates.
Best for Home Mining
MicroBT WhatsMiner M70Score: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
MicroBT WhatsMiner M7014.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) or MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 is more profitable at $0.14/day compared to $-2.67/day for the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) or MicroBT WhatsMiner M70?
The MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 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.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) or MicroBT WhatsMiner M70?
The MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 scores 36/100 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.
What is the efficiency difference between Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) and MicroBT WhatsMiner M70?
The Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) runs at 97.0 J/TH while the MicroBT WhatsMiner M70 runs at 14.5 J/TH — a difference of 82.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 85% better efficacité (97.0 vs 14.5 J/TH).