Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) vs Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) | Specification | Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 28.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 64.0 TH/s |
| 1,596 W | Power Consumption | 2,880 W |
| 57.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 45.0 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | — |
| 7,000.0 kg | Weight | 10,500.0 kg |
| 5,446 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 9,827 BTU/hr |
| 28/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th)
Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th)
Based on BTC price of $79,110 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th), which leads on 3 of 5 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 129% more hashrate (28.0 vs 64.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) claws back ground on 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
Here is every spec where the Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) and Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) 129% more hashrate (28.0 vs 64.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) 45% better power draw (1,596 vs 2,880 W)
- Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) 21% better efficiency (57.0 vs 45.0 J/TH)
- Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) 33% better weight (7,000 vs 10,500 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) 80% more heat output (5,446 vs 9,827 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) 27% more home mining score (28.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) | Metric | Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $5,599 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $5,149 |
| -$2.81 | Daily net profit | -$4.58 |
| -$6,625 | Net after 1 year | -$6,821 |
| -$7,651 | Net after 2 years | -$8,494 |
| -$8,677 | Net after 3 years | -$10,166 |
| 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 S15 (28Th)Score: 28/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th)45.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) or the Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th)?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) is more profitable at $-2.81/day compared to $-4.58/day for the Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) or the Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) better for noise-sensitive spaces?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) or Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th)?
The Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) scores 28/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th)). 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 S15 (28Th) and Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer S15 (28Th) runs at 57.0 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer S17e (64Th) runs at 45.0 J/TH — a difference of 12.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 21% better efficiency (57.0 vs 45.0 J/TH).