iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell HS3-SE
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner | Specification | Goldshell HS3-SE |
|---|---|---|
| 19.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 930.0 GH/s |
| 3,100 W | Consommation électrique | 930 W |
| 163.2 J/TH | Efficiency | 1,000.0 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 14.0 kg | Weight | 7.3 kg |
| 10,577 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 3,173 BTU/hr |
| 36/100 | Home Mining Score | 31/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Blake2b-sia | Algorithme | Blake2b-sia |
| iBeLink | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner
Goldshell HS3-SE
Based on BTC price of $73,512 and current network difficulty as of May 30, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner, which leads on 5 of 6 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore, rapport qualité-prix). Its biggest concrete edge: 1943% more hashrate (19.0 vs 0.9 TH/s). The Goldshell HS3-SE holds the edge in consommation électrique. Cross-check the spec deltas and operating-cost table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell HS3-SE actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 1943% more hashrate (19.0 vs 0.9 TH/s)
- Goldshell HS3-SE 70% better power draw (3,100 vs 930 W)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 84% better efficacité (163 vs 1,000 J/TH)
- Goldshell HS3-SE 48% better weight (14.0 vs 7.3 kg)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 233% more heat output (10,577 vs 3,173 BTU/hr)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 16% more score de minage domestique (36.0 vs 31.0)
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-S3 Siacoin Miner | Metric | Goldshell HS3-SE |
|---|---|---|
| $1,330 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,700 |
| -$6.81 | Daily net profit | -$2.20 |
| -$3,815 | Net after 1 year | -$2,503 |
| -$6,300 | Net after 2 years | -$3,307 |
| -$8,785 | Net after 3 years | -$4,110 |
| 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
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin MinerScore: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner163.2 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell HS3-SE: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell HS3-SE is more profitable at $-2.20/day compared to $-6.81/day for the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell HS3-SE: which runs at a lower noise level?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Goldshell HS3-SE at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner or Goldshell HS3-SE?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Goldshell HS3-SE). 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-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell HS3-SE on J/TH?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner runs at 163.2 J/TH while the Goldshell HS3-SE runs at 1,000.0 J/TH — a difference of 836.8 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 84% better efficacité (163 vs 1,000 J/TH).