Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) vs Whatsminer M50S++
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) | Specification | Whatsminer M50S++ |
|---|---|---|
| 12.5 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 160.0 TH/s |
| 1,576 W | Consommation électrique | 3,520 W |
| 126.1 J/TH | Efficiency | 22.0 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 3,800.0 kg | Weight | 13.5 kg |
| 5,377 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 12,010 BTU/hr |
| 28/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th)
Whatsminer M50S++
Based on BTC price of $76,991 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Whatsminer M50S++, which leads on 5 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). The standout gap is 1180% more hashrate (12.5 vs 160.0 TH/s) in the Whatsminer M50S++'s favour. The Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) 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 T9 (12.5Th) and Whatsminer M50S++ sit on each measurable spec:
- Whatsminer M50S++ 1180% more hashrate (12.5 vs 160.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) 55% better power draw (1,576 vs 3,520 W)
- Whatsminer M50S++ 83% better efficacité (126.1 vs 22.0 J/TH)
- Whatsminer M50S++ 100% better weight (3,800.0 vs 13.5 kg)
- Whatsminer M50S++ 123% more heat output (5,377 vs 12,010 BTU/hr)
- Whatsminer M50S++ 7% more score de minage domestique (28.0 vs 30.0)
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 (12.5Th) | Metric | Whatsminer M50S++ |
|---|---|---|
| $1,100 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $4,000 |
| -$3.34 | Daily net profit | -$2.78 |
| -$2,319 | Net after 1 year | -$5,014 |
| -$3,538 | Net after 2 years | -$6,029 |
| -$4,757 | Net after 3 years | -$7,043 |
| 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: 30/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Whatsminer M50S++22.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) vs Whatsminer M50S++: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Whatsminer M50S++ is more profitable at $-2.78/day compared to $-3.34/day for the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) or the Whatsminer M50S++ better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Whatsminer M50S++ is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) or the Whatsminer M50S++?
The Whatsminer M50S++ scores 30/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 28/100 for the Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th)). 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 (12.5Th) and Whatsminer M50S++ on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer T9 (12.5Th) runs at 126.1 J/TH while the Whatsminer M50S++ runs at 22.0 J/TH — a difference of 104.1 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 83% better efficacité (126.1 vs 22.0 J/TH).