iBeLink BM-N3 vs Goldshell CK Box II
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-N3 | Specification | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| 25.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 2.1 TH/s |
| 3,300 W | Consommation électrique | 400 W |
| 132.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 190.5 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | — |
| — | Weight | 3.0 kg |
| 11,260 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,365 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Eaglesong | Algorithme | Eaglesong |
| iBeLink | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
iBeLink BM-N3
Goldshell CK Box II
Based on BTC price of $77,902 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the iBeLink BM-N3 comes out ahead — it takes 3 of 5 (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). The standout gap is 1090% more hashrate (25.0 vs 2.1 TH/s) in the iBeLink BM-N3's favour. The Goldshell CK Box II holds the edge in consommation électrique and score de minage domestique. 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 iBeLink BM-N3 and Goldshell CK Box II sit on each measurable spec:
- iBeLink BM-N3 1090% more hashrate (25.0 vs 2.1 TH/s)
- Goldshell CK Box II 88% better power draw (3,300 vs 400 W)
- iBeLink BM-N3 31% better efficacité (132 vs 190 J/TH)
- iBeLink BM-N3 725% more heat output (11,260 vs 1,365 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell CK Box II 55% more score de minage domestique (22.0 vs 34.0)
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.
| iBeLink BM-N3 | Metric | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| $980 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $246 |
| -$7.02 | Daily net profit | -$0.88 |
| -$3,544 | Net after 1 year | -$569 |
| -$6,107 | Net after 2 years | -$892 |
| -$8,671 | Net after 3 years | -$1,215 |
| 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
Goldshell CK Box IIScore: 34/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
iBeLink BM-N3132.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
iBeLink BM-N3 vs Goldshell CK Box II: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell CK Box II is more profitable at $-0.88/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.
Which is quieter, the iBeLink BM-N3 or Goldshell CK Box II?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
iBeLink BM-N3 vs Goldshell CK Box II: which fits a residential setup better?
The Goldshell CK Box II scores 34/100 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.
iBeLink BM-N3 vs Goldshell CK Box II: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The iBeLink BM-N3 runs at 132.0 J/TH while the Goldshell CK Box II runs at 190.5 J/TH — a difference of 58.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 31% better efficacité (132 vs 190 J/TH).