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-N3

iBeLink BM-N3

Hashrate 25.0 TH/s Power 3,300 W Efficiency 132.0 J/TH
VS
iBeLink BM-S1

iBeLink BM-S1

Hashrate 6.8 TH/s Power 2,350 W Efficiency 345.6 J/TH

iBeLink BM-N3 vs iBeLink BM-S1

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

Specifications Comparison

iBeLink BM-N3 Specification iBeLink BM-S1
25.0 TH/s Hashrate 6.8 TH/s
3,300 W Power Consumption 2,350 W
132.0 J/TH Efficiency 345.6 J/TH
Noise Level
Weight 9,000.0 kg
11,260 BTU/hr BTU Output 8,018 BTU/hr
22/100 Home Mining Score 26/100
Release Year
Eaglesong Algorithm Blake2b-sia
iBeLink Manufacturer iBeLink

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

iBeLink BM-N3

Daily Revenue 0.00001150 BTC $0.88
Daily Electricity -$7.92
Daily Profit -$7.04
Monthly -$211.06
Yearly -$2,567.85

iBeLink BM-S1

Daily Revenue 0.00000313 BTC $0.24
Daily Electricity -$5.64
Daily Profit -$5.40
Monthly -$161.98
Yearly -$1,970.76

Based on BTC price of $76,909 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Our scoring model gives the nod to the iBeLink BM-N3, which leads on 3 of 5 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate, price-performance). Where it pulls away hardest is 268% more hashrate (25.0 vs 6.8 TH/s). That said, the iBeLink BM-S1 isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and home mining score. Cross-check the spec deltas and operating-cost table above against your own electricity rate before deciding.

Winner: iBeLink BM-N3 — wins on 3 of 5 factors

Spec Deltas

Here is every spec where the iBeLink BM-N3 and iBeLink BM-S1 actually differ, with the gap quantified:

  • iBeLink BM-N3 268% more hashrate (25.0 vs 6.8 TH/s)
  • iBeLink BM-S1 29% better power draw (3,300 vs 2,350 W)
  • iBeLink BM-N3 62% better efficiency (132 vs 346 J/TH)
  • iBeLink BM-N3 40% more heat output (11,260 vs 8,018 BTU/hr)
  • iBeLink BM-S1 18% more home mining score (22.0 vs 26.0)

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.

iBeLink BM-N3 Metric iBeLink BM-S1
$980 Upfront cost (MSRP) $768
-$7.04 Daily net profit -$5.40
-$3,548 Net after 1 year -$2,739
-$6,116 Net after 2 years -$4,710
-$8,684 Net after 3 years -$6,680
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

iBeLink BM-S1

Score: 26/100. 0 dB noise level.

Best for Efficiency

iBeLink BM-N3

132.0 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

iBeLink BM-N3 vs iBeLink BM-S1: which one earns more per day?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iBeLink BM-S1 is more profitable at $-5.40/day compared to $-7.04/day for the iBeLink BM-N3. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

iBeLink BM-N3 vs iBeLink BM-S1: which runs at a lower noise level?

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

For mining at home, should I pick the iBeLink BM-N3 or the iBeLink BM-S1?

The iBeLink BM-S1 scores 26/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the iBeLink BM-N3). 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 and iBeLink BM-S1 on J/TH?

The iBeLink BM-N3 runs at 132.0 J/TH while the iBeLink BM-S1 runs at 345.6 J/TH — a difference of 213.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 62% better efficiency (132 vs 346 J/TH).