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

IceRiver KS5L

IceRiver KS5L

Hashrate 12.0 TH/s Power 3,400 W Efficiency 283.3 J/TH
VS
Goldshell KA BOX

Goldshell KA BOX

Hashrate 1.2 TH/s Power 400 W Efficiency 339.0 J/TH

IceRiver KS5L vs Goldshell KA BOX

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

Specifications Comparison

IceRiver KS5L Specification Goldshell KA BOX
12.0 TH/s Hashrate 1.2 TH/s
3,400 W Power Consumption 400 W
283.3 J/TH Efficiency 339.0 J/TH
75 dB Noise Level 55 dB
15.0 kg Weight 2.6 kg
11,601 BTU/hr BTU Output 1,365 BTU/hr
36/100 Home Mining Score 62/100
Release Year
KHeavyHash Algorithm KHeavyHash
IceRiver Manufacturer Goldshell

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

IceRiver KS5L

Daily Revenue 0.00000552 BTC $0.43
Daily Electricity -$8.16
Daily Profit -$7.73
Monthly -$231.89
Yearly -$2,821.33

Goldshell KA BOX

Daily Revenue 0.00000054 BTC $0.04
Daily Electricity -$0.96
Daily Profit -$0.92
Monthly -$27.53
Yearly -$334.95

Based on BTC price of $77,929 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

The IceRiver KS5L and Goldshell KA BOX finish in a near dead heat in our weighted scoring. There is no wrong answer here — let your electricity rate, noise tolerance and budget break the tie using the breakdowns above.

Spec Deltas

Here is every spec where the IceRiver KS5L and Goldshell KA BOX actually differ, with the gap quantified:

  • IceRiver KS5L 917% more hashrate (12.0 vs 1.2 TH/s)
  • Goldshell KA BOX 88% better power draw (3,400 vs 400 W)
  • IceRiver KS5L 16% better efficiency (283 vs 339 J/TH)
  • Goldshell KA BOX 27% better noise (75.0 vs 55.0 dB)
  • Goldshell KA BOX 83% better weight (15.0 vs 2.6 kg)
  • IceRiver KS5L 750% more heat output (11,601 vs 1,365 BTU/hr)
  • Goldshell KA BOX 72% more home mining score (36.0 vs 62.0)

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.

IceRiver KS5L Metric Goldshell KA BOX
$12,000 Upfront cost (MSRP) $305
-$7.73 Daily net profit -$0.92
-$14,821 Net after 1 year -$640
-$17,643 Net after 2 years -$975
-$20,464 Net after 3 years -$1,310
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

Goldshell KA BOX

Score: 62/100. 55 dB noise level.

Best for Efficiency

IceRiver KS5L

283.3 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

IceRiver KS5L vs Goldshell KA BOX: which one earns more per day?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Goldshell KA BOX is more profitable at $-0.92/day compared to $-7.73/day for the IceRiver KS5L. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

Which is quieter, the IceRiver KS5L or Goldshell KA BOX?

The Goldshell KA BOX is quieter at 55 dB compared to the IceRiver KS5L at 75 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.

For mining at home, should I pick the IceRiver KS5L or the Goldshell KA BOX?

The Goldshell KA BOX scores 62/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 36/100 for the IceRiver KS5L). 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 IceRiver KS5L and Goldshell KA BOX?

The IceRiver KS5L runs at 283.3 J/TH while the Goldshell KA BOX runs at 339.0 J/TH — a difference of 55.7 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 16% better efficiency (283 vs 339 J/TH).