iBeLink BM-N3 Max vs Goldshell CK Box II
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-N3 Max | Specification | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| 30.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 2.1 TH/s |
| 3,300 W | Power Consumption | 400 W |
| 110.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 190.5 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 6.6 kg | Weight | 3.0 kg |
| 11,260 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 1,365 BTU/hr |
| 36/100 | Home Mining Score | 34/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Eaglesong | Algorithm | Eaglesong |
| iBeLink | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
iBeLink BM-N3 Max
Goldshell CK Box II
Based on BTC price of $78,257 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the iBeLink BM-N3 Max wins on 4 of 5 factors (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level). The standout gap is 1329% more hashrate (30.0 vs 2.1 TH/s) in the iBeLink BM-N3 Max's favour. That said, the Goldshell CK Box II isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption. 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 iBeLink BM-N3 Max and Goldshell CK Box II sit on each measurable spec:
- iBeLink BM-N3 Max 1329% more hashrate (30.0 vs 2.1 TH/s)
- Goldshell CK Box II 88% better power draw (3,300 vs 400 W)
- iBeLink BM-N3 Max 42% better efficiency (110 vs 190 J/TH)
- Goldshell CK Box II 55% better weight (6.6 vs 3.0 kg)
- iBeLink BM-N3 Max 725% more heat output (11,260 vs 1,365 BTU/hr)
- iBeLink BM-N3 Max 6% more home mining score (36.0 vs 34.0)
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.
| iBeLink BM-N3 Max | Metric | Goldshell CK Box II |
|---|---|---|
| — | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $246 |
| -$6.84 | Daily net profit | -$0.88 |
| -$2,496 | Net after 1 year | -$569 |
| -$4,993 | Net after 2 years | -$892 |
| -$7,489 | Net after 3 years | -$1,214 |
| — | 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
iBeLink BM-N3 MaxScore: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
iBeLink BM-N3 Max110.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the iBeLink BM-N3 Max or the Goldshell CK Box II?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell CK Box II is more profitable at $-0.88/day compared to $-6.84/day for the iBeLink BM-N3 Max. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the iBeLink BM-N3 Max or the Goldshell CK Box II better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The iBeLink BM-N3 Max is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Goldshell CK Box II at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the iBeLink BM-N3 Max or Goldshell CK Box II?
The iBeLink BM-N3 Max scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 34/100 for the Goldshell CK Box II). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
How far apart are the iBeLink BM-N3 Max and Goldshell CK Box II on J/TH?
The iBeLink BM-N3 Max runs at 110.0 J/TH while the Goldshell CK Box II runs at 190.5 J/TH — a difference of 80.5 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 42% better efficiency (110 vs 190 J/TH).