Passer au contenu

Nous améliorons nos opérations pour mieux vous servir. Les commandes sont expédiées normalement depuis Laval, QC. Questions? Contactez-nous

Bitcoin accepté au paiement  |  Expédié depuis Laval, QC, Canada  |  Soutien expert depuis 2016

iBeLink BM-N1

iBeLink BM-N1

Taux de hachage 6.6 TH/s Puissance 2,400 W Efficiency 363.6 J/TH
VS
iBeLink BM-N3

iBeLink BM-N3

Taux de hachage 25.0 TH/s Puissance 3,300 W Efficiency 132.0 J/TH

iBeLink BM-N1 vs iBeLink BM-N3

Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.

Specifications Comparison

iBeLink BM-N1 Specification iBeLink BM-N3
6.6 TH/s Taux de hachage 25.0 TH/s
2,400 W Consommation électrique 3,300 W
363.6 J/TH Efficiency 132.0 J/TH
Niveau de bruit
9,900.0 kg Weight
8,189 BTU/hr BTU Output 11,260 BTU/hr
26/100 Home Mining Score 22/100
Release Year
Eaglesong Algorithme Eaglesong
iBeLink Manufacturer iBeLink

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

iBeLink BM-N1

Daily Revenue 0.00000304 BTC $0.24
Daily Electricity -$5.76
Daily Profit -$5.52
Monthly -$165.67
Yearly -$2,015.71

iBeLink BM-N3

Daily Revenue 0.00001150 BTC $0.90
Daily Electricity -$7.92
Daily Profit -$7.02
Monthly -$210.61
Yearly -$2,562.41

Based on BTC price of $78,203 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Run the numbers across every spec and the iBeLink BM-N3 edges it: 2 of 4 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate). The standout gap is 279% more hashrate (6.6 vs 25.0 TH/s) in the iBeLink BM-N3's favour. The iBeLink BM-N1 holds the edge in consommation électrique and score de minage domestique. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.

Winner: iBeLink BM-N3 — l'emporte sur 2 des 4 facteurs

Spec Deltas

Here is every spec where the iBeLink BM-N1 and iBeLink BM-N3 actually differ, with the gap quantified:

  • iBeLink BM-N3 279% more hashrate (6.6 vs 25.0 TH/s)
  • iBeLink BM-N1 27% better power draw (2,400 vs 3,300 W)
  • iBeLink BM-N3 64% better efficacité (364 vs 132 J/TH)
  • iBeLink BM-N3 38% more heat output (8,189 vs 11,260 BTU/hr)
  • iBeLink BM-N1 18% more score de minage domestique (26.0 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.

iBeLink BM-N1 Metric iBeLink BM-N3
Upfront cost (MSRP) $980
-$5.52 Daily net profit -$7.02
-$2,016 Net after 1 year -$3,542
-$4,031 Net after 2 years -$6,105
-$6,047 Net after 3 years -$8,667
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

Tie

Both miners produce similar daily profit.

Best for Home Mining

iBeLink BM-N1

Score: 26/100. 0 dB noise level.

Best for Efficiency

iBeLink BM-N3

132.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the iBeLink BM-N1 or iBeLink BM-N3 more profitable?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iBeLink BM-N1 is more profitable at $-5.52/day compared to $-7.02/day for the iBeLink BM-N3. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

iBeLink BM-N1 vs iBeLink BM-N3: which runs at a lower noise level?

Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.

iBeLink BM-N1 vs iBeLink BM-N3: which fits a residential setup better?

The iBeLink BM-N1 scores 26/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the iBeLink BM-N3). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.

How far apart are the iBeLink BM-N1 and iBeLink BM-N3 on J/TH?

The iBeLink BM-N1 runs at 363.6 J/TH while the iBeLink BM-N3 runs at 132.0 J/TH — a difference of 231.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 64% better efficacité (364 vs 132 J/TH).