Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) vs Whatsminer M50S+
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) | Specification | Whatsminer M50S+ |
|---|---|---|
| 10.5 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 138.0 TH/s |
| 1,432 W | Consommation électrique | 3,276 W |
| 136.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 23.7 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 4,200.0 kg | Weight | 13.0 kg |
| 4,886 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,178 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th)
Whatsminer M50S+
Based on BTC price of $78,005 and current network difficulty as of May 17, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Whatsminer M50S+ comes out ahead — it takes 5 of 6 (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 1214% more hashrate (10.5 vs 138.0 TH/s). That said, the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) and Whatsminer M50S+ diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Whatsminer M50S+ 1214% more hashrate (10.5 vs 138.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) 56% better power draw (1,432 vs 3,276 W)
- Whatsminer M50S+ 83% better efficacité (136.4 vs 23.7 J/TH)
- Whatsminer M50S+ 100% better weight (4,200.0 vs 13.0 kg)
- Whatsminer M50S+ 129% more heat output (4,886 vs 11,178 BTU/hr)
- Whatsminer M50S+ 16% more score de minage domestique (31.0 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.
| Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) | Metric | Whatsminer M50S+ |
|---|---|---|
| $955 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $3,500 |
| -$3.06 | Daily net profit | -$2.91 |
| -$2,072 | Net after 1 year | -$4,562 |
| -$3,189 | Net after 2 years | -$5,623 |
| -$4,306 | Net after 3 years | -$6,685 |
| 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
Whatsminer M50S+Score: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Whatsminer M50S+23.7 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) or Whatsminer M50S+ more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Whatsminer M50S+ is more profitable at $-2.91/day compared to $-3.06/day for the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) vs Whatsminer M50S+: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Whatsminer M50S+ is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) or Whatsminer M50S+?
The Whatsminer M50S+ scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) and Whatsminer M50S+ on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) runs at 136.4 J/TH while the Whatsminer M50S+ runs at 23.7 J/TH — a difference of 112.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 83% better efficacité (136.4 vs 23.7 J/TH).