Goldshell AE-BOX vs Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Goldshell AE-BOX | Specification | Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) |
|---|---|---|
| 37.0 MH/s | Hashrate | 2.0 GH/s |
| 360 W | Power Consumption | 3,580 W |
| 9,729,729.7 J/TH | Efficiency | 1,790,000.0 J/TH |
| 35 dB | Noise Level | 75 dB |
| 2.3 kg | Weight | 15.0 kg |
| 1,228 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 12,215 BTU/hr |
| 69/100 | Home Mining Score | 30/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Zksnark | Algorithm | Zksnark |
| Goldshell | Manufacturer | IceRiver |
Profitability Comparison
Goldshell AE-BOX
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)
Based on BTC price of $78,257 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) wins on 3 of 6 factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 5305% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s). That said, the Goldshell AE-BOX isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and home mining score and noise level. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Goldshell AE-BOX and Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 5305% more hashrate (0.0 vs 0.0 TH/s)
- Goldshell AE-BOX 90% better power draw (360 vs 3,580 W)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 82% better efficiency (9,729,730 vs 1,790,000 J/TH)
- Goldshell AE-BOX 53% better noise (35.0 vs 75.0 dB)
- Goldshell AE-BOX 85% better weight (2.3 vs 15.0 kg)
- Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) 894% more heat output (1,228 vs 12,215 BTU/hr)
- Goldshell AE-BOX 130% more home mining score (69.0 vs 30.0)
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.
| Goldshell AE-BOX | Metric | Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) |
|---|---|---|
| $100 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $5,390 |
| -$0.86 | Daily net profit | -$8.59 |
| -$415 | Net after 1 year | -$8,526 |
| -$731 | Net after 2 years | -$11,662 |
| -$1,046 | Net after 3 years | -$14,798 |
| 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-BOXScore: 69/100. 35 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)1,790,000.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Goldshell AE-BOX or the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell AE-BOX is more profitable at $-0.86/day compared to $-8.59/day for the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Goldshell AE-BOX or the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Goldshell AE-BOX is quieter at 35 dB compared to the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Goldshell AE-BOX or the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)?
The Goldshell AE-BOX scores 69/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 30/100 for the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Goldshell AE-BOX vs Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s): how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Goldshell AE-BOX runs at 9,729,729.7 J/TH while the Iceriver ALEO AE3 (2Gh/s) runs at 1,790,000.0 J/TH — a difference of 7,939,729.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 82% better efficiency (9,729,730 vs 1,790,000 J/TH).