Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) vs Canaan Avalon Nano 3S
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) | Specification | Canaan Avalon Nano 3S |
|---|---|---|
| 64.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 6.0 TH/s |
| 3,200 W | Power Consumption | 140 W |
| 50.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 23.3 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | 30 dB |
| 10,000.0 kg | Weight | 0.9 kg |
| 10,918 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 478 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 65/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th)
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S
Based on BTC price of $79,070 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Weighing six performance factors, the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S comes out ahead — it takes 4 of 6 (efficiency, power consumption, home mining score, noise level). Where it pulls away hardest is 96% better power draw (3,200 vs 140 W). The Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) claws back ground on hashrate and price-performance. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) and Canaan Avalon Nano 3S actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) 967% more hashrate (64.0 vs 6.0 TH/s)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 96% better power draw (3,200 vs 140 W)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 53% better efficiency (50.0 vs 23.3 J/TH)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 100% better weight (10,000.0 vs 0.9 kg)
- Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) 2186% more heat output (10,918 vs 478 BTU/hr)
- Canaan Avalon Nano 3S 195% more home mining score (22.0 vs 65.0)
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 T17+ (64Th) | Metric | Canaan Avalon Nano 3S |
|---|---|---|
| $75 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $145 |
| -$5.35 | Daily net profit | -$0.12 |
| -$2,028 | Net after 1 year | -$188 |
| -$3,981 | Net after 2 years | -$231 |
| -$5,935 | Net after 3 years | -$274 |
| 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 Nano 3SScore: 65/100. 30 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan Avalon Nano 3S23.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or Canaan Avalon Nano 3S more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is more profitable at $-0.12/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.
Is the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S is quieter at 30 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 Nano 3S?
The Canaan Avalon Nano 3S scores 65/100 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.
How far apart are the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) and Canaan Avalon Nano 3S on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) runs at 50.0 J/TH while the Canaan Avalon Nano 3S runs at 23.3 J/TH — a difference of 26.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 53% better efficiency (50.0 vs 23.3 J/TH).