Skip to content

We're upgrading our operations to serve you better. Orders ship as usual from Laval, QC. Questions? Contact us

Bitcoin accepted at checkout  |  Ships from Laval, QC, Canada  |  Expert support since 2016

Antminer S9i

Antminer S9i

Hashrate 14.0 TH/s Power 1,320 W Efficiency 94.3 J/TH
VS
Ebang Ebit E9

Ebang Ebit E9

Hashrate 6.3 TH/s Power 1,077 W Efficiency 171.0 J/TH

Antminer S9i vs Ebang Ebit E9

Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.

Specifications Comparison

Antminer S9i Specification Ebang Ebit E9
14.0 TH/s Hashrate 6.3 TH/s
1,320 W Power Consumption 1,077 W
94.3 J/TH Efficiency 171.0 J/TH
76 dB Noise Level
4.2 kg Weight
4,504 BTU/hr BTU Output 3,675 BTU/hr
83/100 Home Mining Score 31/100
Release Year
SHA-256 Algorithm SHA-256
Bitmain Manufacturer Ebang

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

Antminer S9i

Daily Revenue 0.00000644 BTC $0.51
Daily Electricity -$3.17
Daily Profit -$2.66
Monthly -$79.75
Yearly -$970.35

Ebang Ebit E9

Daily Revenue 0.00000290 BTC $0.23
Daily Electricity -$2.58
Daily Profit -$2.36
Monthly -$70.67
Yearly -$859.76

Based on BTC price of $79,086 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Weighing six performance factors, the Antminer S9i comes out ahead — it takes 4 of 5 (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). The standout gap is 122% more hashrate (14.0 vs 6.3 TH/s) in the Antminer S9i's favour. The Ebang Ebit E9 claws back ground on power consumption. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.

Winner: Antminer S9i — wins on 4 of 5 factors

Spec Deltas

The Antminer S9i and Ebang Ebit E9 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":

  • Antminer S9i 122% more hashrate (14.0 vs 6.3 TH/s)
  • Ebang Ebit E9 18% better power draw (1,320 vs 1,077 W)
  • Antminer S9i 45% better efficiency (94.3 vs 171.0 J/TH)
  • Antminer S9i 23% more heat output (4,504 vs 3,675 BTU/hr)
  • Antminer S9i 168% more home mining score (83.0 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 S9i Metric Ebang Ebit E9
Upfront cost (MSRP) $370
-$2.66 Daily net profit -$2.36
-$970 Net after 1 year -$1,230
-$1,941 Net after 2 years -$2,090
-$2,911 Net after 3 years -$2,949
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

Tie

Both miners produce similar daily profit.

Best for Home Mining

Antminer S9i

Score: 83/100. 76 dB noise level.

Best for Efficiency

Antminer S9i

94.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Antminer S9i or Ebang Ebit E9 more profitable?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Ebang Ebit E9 is more profitable at $-2.36/day compared to $-2.66/day for the Antminer S9i. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

Is the Antminer S9i or the Ebang Ebit E9 better for noise-sensitive spaces?

The Antminer S9i is quieter at 76 dB compared to the Ebang Ebit E9 at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.

Which is better for home mining, the Antminer S9i or Ebang Ebit E9?

The Antminer S9i scores 83/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Ebang Ebit E9). 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 S9i and Ebang Ebit E9?

The Antminer S9i runs at 94.3 J/TH while the Ebang Ebit E9 runs at 171.0 J/TH — a difference of 76.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 45% better efficiency (94.3 vs 171.0 J/TH).