Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) vs Canaan Avalon A1566I
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) | Specification | Canaan Avalon A1566I |
|---|---|---|
| 64.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 249.0 TH/s |
| 3,200 W | Power Consumption | 4,500 W |
| 50.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 18.1 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | 50 dB |
| 10,000.0 kg | Weight | 11.3 kg |
| 10,918 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 15,354 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 44/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th)
Canaan Avalon A1566I
Based on BTC price of $79,090 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the Canaan Avalon A1566I wins on 4 of 6 factors (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). Where it pulls away hardest is 289% more hashrate (64.0 vs 249.0 TH/s). That said, the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and price-performance. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
The Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) and Canaan Avalon A1566I diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 289% more hashrate (64.0 vs 249.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) 29% better power draw (3,200 vs 4,500 W)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 64% better efficiency (50.0 vs 18.1 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 100% better weight (10,000.0 vs 11.3 kg)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 41% more heat output (10,918 vs 15,354 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon A1566I 100% more home mining score (22.0 vs 44.0)
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+ (64Th) | Metric | Canaan Avalon A1566I |
|---|---|---|
| $75 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $2,710 |
| -$5.35 | Daily net profit | -$1.74 |
| -$2,028 | Net after 1 year | -$3,344 |
| -$3,981 | Net after 2 years | -$3,978 |
| -$5,934 | Net after 3 years | -$4,612 |
| 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
Canaan Avalon A1566IScore: 44/100. 50 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon A1566I18.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or the Canaan Avalon A1566I?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon A1566I is more profitable at $-1.74/day compared to $-5.35/day for the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th). Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or Canaan Avalon A1566I?
The Canaan Avalon A1566I is quieter at 50 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or Canaan Avalon A1566I?
The Canaan Avalon A1566I scores 44/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th)). 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 Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) and Canaan Avalon A1566I?
The Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) runs at 50.0 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon A1566I runs at 18.1 J/TH — a difference of 31.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 64% better efficiency (50.0 vs 18.1 J/TH).