Antminer Slim Edition (S9) vs Innosilicon T3+
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Slim Edition (S9) | Specification | Innosilicon T3+ |
|---|---|---|
| 12.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 67.0 TH/s |
| 1,100 W | Consommation électrique | 3,300 W |
| 91.7 J/TH | Efficiency | 49.3 J/TH |
| 65 dB | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 3.5 kg | Weight | 12.0 kg |
| 3,753 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,260 BTU/hr |
| 52/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | Innosilicon |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Slim Edition (S9)
Innosilicon T3+
Based on BTC price of $62,980 and current network difficulty as of Jun 4, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le Innosilicon T3+ l'emporte sur 3 des 6 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 458% more hashrate (12.0 vs 67.0 TH/s). The Antminer Slim Edition (S9) claws back ground on consommation électrique and score de minage domestique and niveau sonore. Cross-check the spec deltas and operating-cost table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Antminer Slim Edition (S9) and Innosilicon T3+ actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Innosilicon T3+ 458% more hashrate (12.0 vs 67.0 TH/s)
- Antminer Slim Edition (S9) 67% better power draw (1,100 vs 3,300 W)
- Innosilicon T3+ 46% better efficacité (91.7 vs 49.3 J/TH)
- Antminer Slim Edition (S9) 13% better noise (65.0 vs 75.0 dB)
- Antminer Slim Edition (S9) 71% better weight (3.5 vs 12.0 kg)
- Innosilicon T3+ 200% more heat output (3,753 vs 11,260 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Slim Edition (S9) 44% more score de minage domestique (52.0 vs 36.0)
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 Slim Edition (S9) | Metric | Innosilicon T3+ |
|---|---|---|
| $350 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,200 |
| -$2.30 | Daily net profit | -$6.01 |
| -$1,189 | Net after 1 year | -$3,394 |
| -$2,028 | Net after 2 years | -$5,588 |
| -$2,866 | Net after 3 years | -$7,782 |
| 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 Slim Edition (S9)Score: 52/100. 65 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Innosilicon T3+49.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Antminer Slim Edition (S9) or the Innosilicon T3+?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Antminer Slim Edition (S9) is more profitable at $-2.30/day compared to $-6.01/day for the Innosilicon T3+. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Antminer Slim Edition (S9) or the Innosilicon T3+ better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Antminer Slim Edition (S9) is quieter at 65 dB compared to the Innosilicon T3+ at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Antminer Slim Edition (S9) vs Innosilicon T3+: which fits a residential setup better?
The Antminer Slim Edition (S9) scores 52/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 36/100 for the Innosilicon T3+). 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 Slim Edition (S9) and Innosilicon T3+ on J/TH?
The Antminer Slim Edition (S9) runs at 91.7 J/TH while the Innosilicon T3+ runs at 49.3 J/TH — a difference of 42.4 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 46% better efficacité (91.7 vs 49.3 J/TH).