Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) vs Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) | Specification | Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) |
|---|---|---|
| 73.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 13.5 TH/s |
| 2,920 W | Power Consumption | 1,310 W |
| 40.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 97.0 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | — |
| 11,000.0 kg | Weight | 4,200.0 kg |
| 9,963 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 4,470 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 31/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Bitmain |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th)
Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)
Based on BTC price of $79,032 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th), which leads on 3 of 5 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 441% more hashrate (73.0 vs 13.5 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 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
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) and Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) sit on each measurable spec:
- Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) 441% more hashrate (73.0 vs 13.5 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 55% better power draw (2,920 vs 1,310 W)
- Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) 59% better efficiency (40.0 vs 97.0 J/TH)
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 62% better weight (11,000 vs 4,200 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) 123% more heat output (9,963 vs 4,470 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) 41% more home mining score (22.0 vs 31.0)
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 S17+ (73Th) | Metric | Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) |
|---|---|---|
| $550 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $600 |
| -$4.35 | Daily net profit | -$2.65 |
| -$2,139 | Net after 1 year | -$1,568 |
| -$3,728 | Net after 2 years | -$2,537 |
| -$5,317 | Net after 3 years | -$3,505 |
| 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 S9k (13.5Th)Score: 31/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th)40.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) vs Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th): which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) is more profitable at $-2.65/day compared to $-4.35/day for the Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) or Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th)?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) vs Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th): which fits a residential setup better?
The Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) scores 31/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th)). 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 S17+ (73Th) and Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer S17+ (73Th) runs at 40.0 J/TH while the Bitmain Antminer S9k (13.5Th) runs at 97.0 J/TH — a difference of 57.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 59% better efficiency (40.0 vs 97.0 J/TH).