Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Specification | Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 14.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 4.0 TH/s |
| 1,350 W | Power Consumption | 1,027 W |
| 96.4 J/TH | Efficiency | 256.8 J/TH |
| 55 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 6.0 kg | Weight | 3,050.0 kg |
| 4,606 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 3,504 BTU/hr |
| 59/100 | Home Mining Score | 31/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| D-Central | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)
Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th)
Based on BTC price of $79,071 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) edges it: 4 of 5 factors go its way (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). The standout gap is 250% more hashrate (14.0 vs 4.0 TH/s) in the Antminer Loki Edition (S9)'s favour. That said, the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) and Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) sit on each measurable spec:
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 250% more hashrate (14.0 vs 4.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) 24% better power draw (1,350 vs 1,027 W)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 62% better efficiency (96.4 vs 256.8 J/TH)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 100% better weight (6.0 vs 3,050.0 kg)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 31% more heat output (4,606 vs 3,504 BTU/hr)
- Antminer Loki Edition (S9) 90% more home mining score (59.0 vs 31.0)
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.
| Antminer Loki Edition (S9) | Metric | Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $349 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | — |
| -$2.71 | Daily net profit | -$2.31 |
| -$1,340 | Net after 1 year | -$845 |
| -$2,331 | Net after 2 years | -$1,690 |
| -$3,322 | Net after 3 years | -$2,535 |
| Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) | Payback period | — |
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
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)Score: 59/100. 55 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Antminer Loki Edition (S9)96.4 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Antminer Loki Edition (S9) vs Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th): which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) is more profitable at $-2.31/day compared to $-2.71/day for the Antminer Loki Edition (S9). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) is quieter at 55 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Antminer Loki Edition (S9) or the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th)?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) scores 59/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
What is the efficiency difference between Antminer Loki Edition (S9) and Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th)?
The Antminer Loki Edition (S9) runs at 96.4 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer V9 (4Th) runs at 256.8 J/TH — a difference of 160.3 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 62% better efficiency (96.4 vs 256.8 J/TH).