Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M79
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) | Specification | MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 |
|---|---|---|
| 10.5 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 920.0 TH/s |
| 1,432 W | Consommation électrique | 13,340 W |
| 136.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 14.5 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 50 dB |
| 4,200.0 kg | Weight | 37.0 kg |
| 4,886 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 45,516 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 44/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th)
MicroBT WhatsMiner M79
Based on BTC price of $78,175 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: 8662% more hashrate (10.5 vs 920.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) claws back ground on 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 MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 8662% more hashrate (10.5 vs 920.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) 89% better power draw (1,432 vs 13,340 W)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 89% better efficacité (136.4 vs 14.5 J/TH)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 99% better weight (4,200.0 vs 37.0 kg)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 832% more heat output (4,886 vs 45,516 BTU/hr)
- MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 42% more score de minage domestique (31.0 vs 44.0)
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 T9+ (10.5Th) | Metric | MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 |
|---|---|---|
| $955 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$3.06 | Daily net profit | $1.08 |
| -$2,072 | Net after 1 year | +$395 |
| -$3,188 | Net after 2 years | +$789 |
| -$4,305 | Net after 3 years | +$1,184 |
| 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$4.14/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
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) or the MicroBT WhatsMiner M79?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 is more profitable at $1.08/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.
Is the Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) or the MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 is quieter at 50 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 MicroBT WhatsMiner M79?
The MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 scores 44/100 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.
Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) vs MicroBT WhatsMiner M79: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Bitmain Antminer T9+ (10.5Th) runs at 136.4 J/TH while the MicroBT WhatsMiner M79 runs at 14.5 J/TH — a difference of 121.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 89% better efficacité (136.4 vs 14.5 J/TH).