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

iBeLink BM-KS Max

iBeLink BM-KS Max

Hashrate 11.0 TH/s Power 3,400 W Efficiency 309.1 J/TH
VS
IceRiver KS3

IceRiver KS3

Hashrate 8.0 TH/s Power 3,200 W Efficiency 400.0 J/TH

iBeLink BM-KS Max vs IceRiver KS3

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

Specifications Comparison

iBeLink BM-KS Max Specification IceRiver KS3
11.0 TH/s Hashrate 8.0 TH/s
3,400 W Power Consumption 3,200 W
309.1 J/TH Efficiency 400.0 J/TH
75 dB Noise Level 75 dB
12.2 kg Weight 14.4 kg
11,601 BTU/hr BTU Output 10,918 BTU/hr
36/100 Home Mining Score 36/100
Release Year
KHeavyHash Algorithm KHeavyHash
iBeLink Manufacturer IceRiver

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

iBeLink BM-KS Max

Daily Revenue 0.00000506 BTC $0.40
Daily Electricity -$8.16
Daily Profit -$7.76
Monthly -$232.94
Yearly -$2,834.06

IceRiver KS3

Daily Revenue 0.00000368 BTC $0.29
Daily Electricity -$7.68
Daily Profit -$7.39
Monthly -$221.77
Yearly -$2,698.22

Based on BTC price of $78,124 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Our scoring model gives the nod to the iBeLink BM-KS Max, which leads on 3 of 4 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 38% more hashrate (11.0 vs 8.0 TH/s). The IceRiver KS3 holds the edge in power consumption. Cross-check the spec deltas and ROI table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.

Winner: iBeLink BM-KS Max — wins on 3 of 4 factors

Spec Deltas

Here is every spec where the iBeLink BM-KS Max and IceRiver KS3 actually differ, with the gap quantified:

  • iBeLink BM-KS Max 38% more hashrate (11.0 vs 8.0 TH/s)
  • IceRiver KS3 6% better power draw (3,400 vs 3,200 W)
  • iBeLink BM-KS Max 23% better efficiency (309 vs 400 J/TH)
  • iBeLink BM-KS Max 15% better weight (12.2 vs 14.4 kg)
  • iBeLink BM-KS Max 6% more heat output (11,601 vs 10,918 BTU/hr)

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.

iBeLink BM-KS Max Metric IceRiver KS3
$1,799 Upfront cost (MSRP) $10,000
-$7.76 Daily net profit -$7.39
-$4,633 Net after 1 year -$12,698
-$7,467 Net after 2 years -$15,396
-$10,301 Net after 3 years -$18,095
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

Tie

Both miners produce similar daily profit.

Best for Home Mining

Tie

Both miners are equally suitable for home use.

Best for Efficiency

iBeLink BM-KS Max

309.1 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which makes more money, the iBeLink BM-KS Max or the IceRiver KS3?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the IceRiver KS3 is more profitable at $-7.39/day compared to $-7.76/day for the iBeLink BM-KS Max. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

Is the iBeLink BM-KS Max or the IceRiver KS3 better for noise-sensitive spaces?

Both miners have similar noise levels. Check the specs table above for exact decibel readings.

Which is better for home mining, the iBeLink BM-KS Max or IceRiver KS3?

Both miners score similarly on our Home Mining Score. Consider your specific constraints (noise tolerance, available power, heat needs) to decide.

iBeLink BM-KS Max vs IceRiver KS3: how much does the efficiency gap matter?

The iBeLink BM-KS Max runs at 309.1 J/TH while the IceRiver KS3 runs at 400.0 J/TH — a difference of 90.9 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 23% better efficiency (309 vs 400 J/TH).