Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) vs Whatsminer M30S++
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) | Specification | Whatsminer M30S++ |
|---|---|---|
| 64.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 112.0 TH/s |
| 3,200 W | Power Consumption | 3,472 W |
| 50.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 31.0 J/TH |
| — | Noise Level | 75 dB |
| 10,000.0 kg | Weight | 12.0 kg |
| 10,918 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,847 BTU/hr |
| 22/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithm | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | MicroBT |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th)
Whatsminer M30S++
Based on BTC price of $79,070 and current network difficulty as of May 15, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Our scoring model gives the nod to the Whatsminer M30S++, which leads on 4 of 6 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). The standout gap is 75% more hashrate (64.0 vs 112.0 TH/s) in the Whatsminer M30S++'s favour. That said, the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and price-performance. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) and Whatsminer M30S++ sit on each measurable spec:
- Whatsminer M30S++ 75% more hashrate (64.0 vs 112.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) 8% better power draw (3,200 vs 3,472 W)
- Whatsminer M30S++ 38% better efficiency (50.0 vs 31.0 J/TH)
- Whatsminer M30S++ 100% better weight (10,000.0 vs 12.0 kg)
- Whatsminer M30S++ 9% more heat output (10,918 vs 11,847 BTU/hr)
- Whatsminer M30S++ 64% more home mining score (22.0 vs 36.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Hardware cost is only half the story — here is how each miner's upfront price plays out against cumulative profit at a $0.10/kWh rate.
| Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) | Metric | Whatsminer M30S++ |
|---|---|---|
| $75 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $2,300 |
| -$5.35 | Daily net profit | -$4.26 |
| -$2,028 | Net after 1 year | -$3,854 |
| -$3,981 | Net after 2 years | -$5,408 |
| -$5,935 | Net after 3 years | -$6,962 |
| 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
Whatsminer M30S++Score: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Whatsminer M30S++31.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or the Whatsminer M30S++?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Whatsminer M30S++ is more profitable at $-4.26/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 Whatsminer M30S++ better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The Whatsminer M30S++ is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
For mining at home, should I pick the Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) or the Whatsminer M30S++?
The Whatsminer M30S++ scores 36/100 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 Whatsminer M30S++ on J/TH?
The Bitmain Antminer T17+ (64Th) runs at 50.0 J/TH while the Whatsminer M30S++ runs at 31.0 J/TH — a difference of 19.0 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 38% better efficiency (50.0 vs 31.0 J/TH).