iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell HS5
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner | Specification | Goldshell HS5 |
|---|---|---|
| 19.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 2.7 TH/s |
| 3,100 W | Power Consumption | 2,650 W |
| 163.2 J/TH | Efficiency | 981.5 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 14.0 kg | Weight | 8,500.0 kg |
| 10,577 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 9,042 BTU/hr |
| 36/100 | Home Mining Score | 22/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| Blake2b-sia | Algorithm | Blake2b-sia |
| iBeLink | Manufacturer | Goldshell |
Profitability Comparison
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner
Goldshell HS5
Based on BTC price of $76,989 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner edges it: 5 of 6 factors go its way (efficiency, hashrate, home mining score, noise level, price-performance). Its biggest concrete edge: 604% more hashrate (19.0 vs 2.7 TH/s). That said, the Goldshell HS5 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
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell HS5 diverge on the metrics below — each gap expressed as a real percentage, not a vague "better":
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 604% more hashrate (19.0 vs 2.7 TH/s)
- Goldshell HS5 15% better power draw (3,100 vs 2,650 W)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 83% better efficiency (163 vs 981 J/TH)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 100% better weight (14.0 vs 8,500.0 kg)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 17% more heat output (10,577 vs 9,042 BTU/hr)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 64% more home mining score (36.0 vs 22.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Sticker price versus what the miner actually earns back: the table below projects cumulative net profit at a $0.10/kWh electricity rate.
| iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner | Metric | Goldshell HS5 |
|---|---|---|
| $1,330 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $949 |
| -$6.77 | Daily net profit | -$6.26 |
| -$3,800 | Net after 1 year | -$3,235 |
| -$6,270 | Net after 2 years | -$5,522 |
| -$8,740 | Net after 3 years | -$7,808 |
| 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
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin MinerScore: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner163.2 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which makes more money, the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner or the Goldshell HS5?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell HS5 is more profitable at $-6.26/day compared to $-6.77/day for the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Is the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner or the Goldshell HS5 better for noise-sensitive spaces?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Goldshell HS5 at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Which is better for home mining, the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner or Goldshell HS5?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Goldshell HS5). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
What is the efficiency difference between iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell HS5?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner runs at 163.2 J/TH while the Goldshell HS5 runs at 981.5 J/TH — a difference of 818.3 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 83% better efficiency (163 vs 981 J/TH).