iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell SC5 Pro II
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner | Specification | Goldshell SC5 Pro II |
|---|---|---|
| 19.0 TH/s | Hashrate | 14.0 TH/s |
| 3,100 W | Power Consumption | 3,300 W |
| 163.2 J/TH | Efficiency | 235.7 J/TH |
| 75 dB | Noise Level | — |
| 14.0 kg | Weight | 11.5 kg |
| 10,577 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,260 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 SC5 Pro II
Based on BTC price of $77,015 and current network difficulty as of May 18, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Based on our multi-factor analysis, the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner wins on 5 of 6 factors (efficiency, hashrate, power consumption, home mining score, noise level). Where it pulls away hardest is 31% better efficiency (163 vs 236 J/TH). That said, the Goldshell SC5 Pro II isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins price-performance. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Here is every spec where the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell SC5 Pro II actually differ, with the gap quantified:
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 36% more hashrate (19.0 vs 14.0 TH/s)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 6% better power draw (3,100 vs 3,300 W)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 31% better efficiency (163 vs 236 J/TH)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro II 18% better weight (14.0 vs 11.5 kg)
- Goldshell SC5 Pro II 6% more heat output (10,577 vs 11,260 BTU/hr)
- iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner 64% more home mining score (36.0 vs 22.0)
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-S3 Siacoin Miner | Metric | Goldshell SC5 Pro II |
|---|---|---|
| $1,330 | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $630 |
| -$6.77 | Daily net profit | -$7.42 |
| -$3,800 | Net after 1 year | -$3,340 |
| -$6,270 | Net after 2 years | -$6,049 |
| -$8,739 | Net after 3 years | -$8,759 |
| 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
Is the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner or Goldshell SC5 Pro II more profitable?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner is more profitable at $-6.77/day compared to $-7.42/day for the Goldshell SC5 Pro II. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner vs Goldshell SC5 Pro II: which runs at a lower noise level?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Goldshell SC5 Pro 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-S3 Siacoin Miner or Goldshell SC5 Pro II?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 22/100 for the Goldshell SC5 Pro 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-S3 Siacoin Miner and Goldshell SC5 Pro II on J/TH?
The iBeLink BM-S3 Siacoin Miner runs at 163.2 J/TH while the Goldshell SC5 Pro II runs at 235.7 J/TH — a difference of 72.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 31% better efficiency (163 vs 236 J/TH).