Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) vs Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) | Specification | Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 |
|---|---|---|
| 40.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 150.0 TH/s |
| 2,200 W | Power Consumption | 3,230 W |
| 55.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 21.5 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | — |
| 11,500.0 kg | Weight | 13.0 kg |
| 7,506 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,021 BTU/hr |
| 26/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th)
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466
Based on BTC price of $79,143 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 comes out ahead — it takes 2 of 5 (efficiency, hashrate). Its biggest concrete edge: 275% more hashrate (40.0 vs 150.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) holds the edge in power consumption and home mining score and price-performance. 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 T17 (40Th) and Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 sit on each measurable spec:
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 275% more hashrate (40.0 vs 150.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) 32% better power draw (2,200 vs 3,230 W)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 61% better efficiency (55.0 vs 21.5 J/TH)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 100% better weight (11,500.0 vs 13.0 kg)
- Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 47% more heat output (7,506 vs 11,021 BTU/hr)
- Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) 18% more home mining score (26.0 vs 22.0)
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.
| Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) | Metric | Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 |
|---|---|---|
| $155 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $937 |
| -$3.82 | Daily net profit | -$2.29 |
| -$1,550 | Net after 1 year | -$1,772 |
| -$2,946 | Net after 2 years | -$2,608 |
| -$4,341 | Net after 3 years | -$3,443 |
| 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 T17 (40Th)Score: 26/100. 0 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan AvalonMiner Made A146621.5 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) or the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 is more profitable at $-2.29/day compared to $-3.82/day for the Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) or Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466?
Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.
Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) vs Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466: which fits a residential setup better?
The Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) scores 26/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466). 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 T17 (40Th) and Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer T17 (40Th) runs at 55.0 J/TH while the Canaan AvalonMiner Made A1466 runs at 21.5 J/TH — a difference of 33.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 61% better efficiency (55.0 vs 21.5 J/TH).