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

Iceriver KS3

Iceriver KS3

Taux de hachage 8.0 TH/s Puissance 3,200 W Efficiency 400.0 J/TH
VS
Iceriver KS3M

Iceriver KS3M

Taux de hachage 6.0 TH/s Puissance 3,400 W Efficiency 566.7 J/TH

Iceriver KS3 vs Iceriver KS3M

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

Specifications Comparison

Iceriver KS3 Specification Iceriver KS3M
8.0 TH/s Taux de hachage 6.0 TH/s
3,200 W Consommation électrique 3,400 W
400.0 J/TH Efficiency 566.7 J/TH
75 dB Niveau de bruit 75 dB
13.5 kg Weight 17.1 kg
10,918 BTU/hr BTU Output 11,601 BTU/hr
36/100 Home Mining Score 36/100
Release Year
KHeavyHash Algorithme KHeavyHash
IceRiver Manufacturer IceRiver

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

Iceriver KS3

Daily Revenue 0.00000368 BTC $0.29
Daily Electricity -$7.68
Daily Profit -$7.39
Monthly -$221.76
Yearly -$2,698.14

Iceriver KS3M

Daily Revenue 0.00000276 BTC $0.22
Daily Electricity -$8.16
Daily Profit -$7.94
Monthly -$238.32
Yearly -$2,899.60

Based on BTC price of $78,186 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Our scoring model gives the nod to the Iceriver KS3, which leads on 3 of 4 weighted factors (efficacité, hashrate, consommation électrique). The standout gap is 29% better efficacité (400 vs 567 J/TH) in the Iceriver KS3's favour. The Iceriver KS3M claws back ground on rapport qualité-prix. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.

Winner: Iceriver KS3 — l'emporte sur 3 des 4 facteurs

Spec Deltas

Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Iceriver KS3 and Iceriver KS3M sit on each measurable spec:

  • Iceriver KS3 33% more hashrate (8.0 vs 6.0 TH/s)
  • Iceriver KS3 6% better power draw (3,200 vs 3,400 W)
  • Iceriver KS3 29% better efficacité (400 vs 567 J/TH)
  • Iceriver KS3 21% better weight (13.5 vs 17.1 kg)
  • Iceriver KS3M 6% more heat output (10,918 vs 11,601 BTU/hr)

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.

Iceriver KS3 Metric Iceriver KS3M
$730 Upfront cost (MSRP) $320
-$7.39 Daily net profit -$7.94
-$3,428 Net after 1 year -$3,220
-$6,126 Net after 2 years -$6,119
-$8,824 Net after 3 years -$9,019
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

Tie

Both miners produce similar daily profit.

Best for Home Mining

Tie

Both miners are equally suitable for home use.

Best for Efficiency

Iceriver KS3

400.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which makes more money, the Iceriver KS3 or the Iceriver KS3M?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Iceriver KS3 is more profitable at $-7.39/day compared to $-7.94/day for the Iceriver KS3M. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

Which is quieter, the Iceriver KS3 or Iceriver KS3M?

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

Iceriver KS3 vs Iceriver KS3M: which fits a residential setup better?

Both miners score similarly on our Home Mining Score. Consider your specific constraints (noise tolerance, available power, heat needs) to decide.

What is the efficiency difference between Iceriver KS3 and Iceriver KS3M?

The Iceriver KS3 runs at 400.0 J/TH while the Iceriver KS3M runs at 566.7 J/TH — a difference of 166.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 29% better efficacité (400 vs 567 J/TH).