Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) vs MicroBT Whatsminer M10S
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) | Specification | MicroBT Whatsminer M10S |
|---|---|---|
| 12.5 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 55.0 TH/s |
| 1,576 W | Consommation électrique | 3,500 W |
| 126.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 63.6 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 3,800.0 kg | Weight | 10,700.0 kg |
| 5,377 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,942 BTU/hr |
| 28/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th)
MicroBT Whatsminer M10S
Based on BTC price of $78,293 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le MicroBT Whatsminer M10S l'emporte sur 3 des 5 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 340% more hashrate (12.5 vs 55.0 TH/s). That said, the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins consommation électrique and score de minage domestique. 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 T9 (12.5Th) and MicroBT Whatsminer M10S actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- MicroBT Whatsminer M10S 340% more hashrate (12.5 vs 55.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) 55% better power draw (1,576 vs 3,500 W)
- MicroBT Whatsminer M10S 50% better efficacité (126.1 vs 63.6 J/TH)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) 64% better weight (3,800 vs 10,700 kg)
- MicroBT Whatsminer M10S 122% more heat output (5,377 vs 11,942 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) 27% more score de minage domestique (28.0 vs 22.0)
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 T9 (12.5Th) | Metric | MicroBT Whatsminer M10S |
|---|---|---|
| $1,100 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $3,800 |
| -$3.33 | Daily net profit | -$6.42 |
| -$2,316 | Net after 1 year | -$6,143 |
| -$3,532 | Net after 2 years | -$8,485 |
| -$4,749 | Net after 3 years | -$10,828 |
| 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
Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th)Score: 28/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
MicroBT Whatsminer M10S63.6 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) or MicroBT Whatsminer M10S more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) is more profitable at $-3.33/day compared to $-6.42/day for the MicroBT Whatsminer M10S. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) vs MicroBT Whatsminer M10S: which runs at a lower noise level?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
For mining at home, should I pick the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) or the MicroBT Whatsminer M10S?
The Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) scores 28/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the MicroBT Whatsminer M10S). 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 (12.5Th) and MicroBT Whatsminer M10S on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) runs at 126.1 J/TH while the MicroBT Whatsminer M10S runs at 63.6 J/TH — a difference of 62.4 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 50% better efficacité (126.1 vs 63.6 J/TH).