Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell CK Box II
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh | Specification | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| 44.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 2.1 TH/s |
| 460 W | Power Consumption | 400 W |
| 10,454,545.5 J/TH | Efficiency | 190.5 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 2.6 kg | Weight | 3.0 kg |
| 1,570 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,365 BTU/hr |
| 69/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithm | Eaglesong |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh
Goldshell CK Box II
Based on BTC price of $78,209 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Goldshell CK Box II, which leads on 4 of 6 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, power consumption, price-performance). Where it pulls away hardest is 100% better efficiency (10,454,545 vs 190 J/TH). The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh claws back ground on home mining score and noise level. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.
Spec Deltas
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh and Goldshell CK Box II diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell CK Box II 4772627% more hashrate (0.0 vs 2.1 TH/s)
- Goldshell CK Box II 13% better power draw (460 vs 400 W)
- Goldshell CK Box II 100% better efficiency (10,454,545 vs 190 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 13% better weight (2.6 vs 3.0 kg)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 15% more heat output (1,570 vs 1,365 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh 103% more home mining score (69.0 vs 34.0)
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.
| Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh | Metric | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| $120 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $246 |
| -$1.10 | Daily net profit | -$0.88 |
| -$523 | Net after 1 year | -$569 |
| -$926 | Net after 2 years | -$892 |
| -$1,329 | Net after 3 years | -$1,214 |
| 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 AE-BOX Pro 44MhScore: 69/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell CK Box II190.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh or the Goldshell CK Box II?
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 $-1.10/day for the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh vs Goldshell CK Box II: which runs at a lower noise level?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Goldshell CK Box II at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh or the Goldshell CK Box II?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh scores 69/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 34/100 for the Goldshell CK Box II). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh and Goldshell CK Box II on J/TH?
The Goldshell AE-BOX Pro 44Mh runs at 10,454,545.5 J/TH while the Goldshell CK Box II runs at 190.5 J/TH — a difference of 10,454,355.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 100% better efficiency (10,454,545 vs 190 J/TH).