iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell HS3
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner | Specification | Goldshell HS3 |
|---|---|---|
| 19.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 2.0 TH/s |
| 3,100 W | Consommation électrique | 2,000 W |
| 163.2 J/TH | Efficiency | 1,000.0 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Niveau de bruit | — |
| 14.0 kg | Weight | 7.0 kg |
| 10,577 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 6,824 BTU/hr |
| 36/100 | Home Mining Score | 28/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Blake2b-sia | Algorithme | Blake2b-sia |
| iBeLink | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner
Goldshell HS3
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). Where it pulls away hardest is 850% more hashrate (19.0 vs 2.0 TH/s). The Goldshell HS3 claws back ground on consommation électrique. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell HS3 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 850% more hashrate (19.0 vs 2.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell HS3 35% better power draw (3,100 vs 2,000 W)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 84% better efficacité (163 vs 1,000 J/TH)
- Goldshell HS3 50% better weight (14.0 vs 7.0 kg)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 55% more heat output (10,577 vs 6,824 BTU/hr)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 29% more score de minage domestique (36.0 vs 28.0)
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.
| iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner | Metric | Goldshell HS3 |
|---|---|---|
| $1,330 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $1,100 |
| -$6.81 | Daily net profit | -$4.73 |
| -$3,815 | Net after 1 year | -$2,828 |
| -$6,300 | Net after 2 years | -$4,555 |
| -$8,785 | Net after 3 years | -$6,283 |
| 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
Which makes more money, the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner or the Goldshell HS3?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell HS3 is more profitable at $-4.73/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: which runs at a lower noise level?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Goldshell HS3 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?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 28/100 for the Goldshell HS3). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell HS3: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner runs at 163.2 J/TH while the Goldshell HS3 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).