iBeLink BM-N3 vs Goldshell CK-BOX
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-N3 | Specification | Goldshell CK-BOX |
|---|---|---|
| 25.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 1.1 TH/s |
| 3,300 W | Consommation électrique | 215 W |
| 132.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 204.8 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | — |
| — | Weight | 2,000.0 kg |
| 11,260 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 734 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 31/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Eaglesong | Algorithme | Eaglesong |
| iBeLink | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
iBeLink BM-N3
Goldshell CK-BOX
Based on BTC price of $78,184 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Selon notre analyse multifactorielle, le iBeLink BM-N3 l'emporte sur 3 des 5 facteurs (efficacité, hashrate, rapport qualité-prix). Where it pulls away hardest is 2281% more hashrate (25.0 vs 1.1 TH/s). The Goldshell CK-BOX 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
The iBeLink BM-N3 and Goldshell CK-BOX diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- iBeLink BM-N3 2281% more hashrate (25.0 vs 1.1 TH/s)
- Goldshell CK-BOX 93% better power draw (3,300 vs 215 W)
- iBeLink BM-N3 36% better efficacité (132 vs 205 J/TH)
- iBeLink BM-N3 1435% more heat output (11,260 vs 734 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell CK-BOX 41% more score de minage domestique (22.0 vs 31.0)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| $980 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $190 |
| -$7.02 | Daily net profit | -$0.48 |
| -$3,542 | Net after 1 year | -$365 |
| -$6,105 | Net after 2 years | -$539 |
| -$8,667 | Net after 3 years | -$714 |
| 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-BOXScore: 31/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
iBeLink BM-N3132.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the iBeLink BM-N3 or the Goldshell CK-BOX?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell CK-BOX is more profitable at $-0.48/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-N3 vs Goldshell CK-BOX: 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 iBeLink BM-N3 or the Goldshell CK-BOX?
The Goldshell CK-BOX scores 31/100 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-N3 and Goldshell CK-BOX on J/TH?
The iBeLink BM-N3 runs at 132.0 J/TH while the Goldshell CK-BOX runs at 204.8 J/TH — a difference of 72.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 36% better efficacité (132 vs 205 J/TH).