Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) vs Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) | Specification | Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 815.0 GH/s | Hashrate | 11.0 TH/s |
| 1,275 W | Power Consumption | 2,820 W |
| 1,564.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 256.4 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | — |
| 4,200.0 kg | Weight | 13.1 kg |
| 4,350 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 9,622 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Blake2b | Algorithm | Blake2b |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh)
Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th)
Based on BTC price of $78,257 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th), which leads on 3 of 5 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 1250% more hashrate (0.8 vs 11.0 TH/s). That said, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and home mining score. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) and Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) 1250% more hashrate (0.8 vs 11.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) 55% better power draw (1,275 vs 2,820 W)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) 84% better efficiency (1,564 vs 256 J/TH)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) 100% better weight (4,200.0 vs 13.1 kg)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) 121% more heat output (4,350 vs 9,622 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) 41% more home mining score (31.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) | Metric | Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $29,718 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $430 |
| -$3.03 | Daily net profit | -$6.37 |
| -$30,824 | Net after 1 year | -$2,756 |
| -$31,930 | Net after 2 years | -$5,081 |
| -$33,037 | Net after 3 years | -$7,407 |
| 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
Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh)Score: 31/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th)256.4 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) vs Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th): which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) is more profitable at $-3.03/day compared to $-6.37/day for the Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) or Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th)?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) or Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th)?
The Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) scores 31/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) and Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer A3 (815Gh) runs at 1,564.4 J/TH while the Goldshell SC5 Pro (11Th) runs at 256.4 J/TH — a difference of 1,308.1 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 84% better efficiency (1,564 vs 256 J/TH).