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

Obelisk SC1 Dual

Obelisk SC1 Dual

Hashrate 1.1 TH/s Power 900 W Efficiency 818.2 J/TH
VS
StrongU STU-U2

StrongU STU-U2

Hashrate 7.0 TH/s Power 1,600 W Efficiency 228.6 J/TH

Obelisk SC1 Dual vs StrongU STU-U2

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

Specifications Comparison

Obelisk SC1 Dual Specification StrongU STU-U2
1.1 TH/s Hashrate 7.0 TH/s
900 W Power Consumption 1,600 W
818.2 J/TH Efficiency 228.6 J/TH
Noise Level
Weight 6,500.0 kg
3,071 BTU/hr BTU Output 5,459 BTU/hr
31/100 Home Mining Score 28/100
Release Year
Blake2b Algorithm Blake2b
Obelisk Manufacturer StrongU

Profitability Comparison

$/kWh

Obelisk SC1 Dual

Daily Revenue 0.00000051 BTC $0.04
Daily Electricity -$2.16
Daily Profit -$2.12
Monthly -$63.61
Yearly -$773.96

StrongU STU-U2

Daily Revenue 0.00000322 BTC $0.25
Daily Electricity -$3.84
Daily Profit -$3.59
Monthly -$107.64
Yearly -$1,309.68

Based on BTC price of $78,178 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.

Verdict

Our scoring model gives the nod to the StrongU STU-U2, which leads on 2 of 4 weighted factors (efficiency, hashrate). The standout gap is 536% more hashrate (1.1 vs 7.0 TH/s) in the StrongU STU-U2's favour. That said, the Obelisk SC1 Dual isn't beaten everywhere — it still wins power consumption and home mining score. The right pick still depends on your power cost and noise tolerance — the breakdowns above make that call concrete.

Winner: StrongU STU-U2 — wins on 2 of 4 factors

Spec Deltas

Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Obelisk SC1 Dual and StrongU STU-U2 sit on each measurable spec:

  • StrongU STU-U2 536% more hashrate (1.1 vs 7.0 TH/s)
  • Obelisk SC1 Dual 44% better power draw (900 vs 1,600 W)
  • StrongU STU-U2 72% better efficiency (818 vs 229 J/TH)
  • StrongU STU-U2 78% more heat output (3,071 vs 5,459 BTU/hr)
  • Obelisk SC1 Dual 11% more home mining score (31.0 vs 28.0)

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.

Obelisk SC1 Dual Metric StrongU STU-U2
Upfront cost (MSRP) $499
-$2.12 Daily net profit -$3.59
-$774 Net after 1 year -$1,809
-$1,548 Net after 2 years -$3,118
-$2,322 Net after 3 years -$4,428
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

Obelisk SC1 Dual

Score: 31/100. 0 dB noise level.

Best for Efficiency

StrongU STU-U2

228.6 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.

Frequently Asked Questions

Obelisk SC1 Dual vs StrongU STU-U2: which one earns more per day?

At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Obelisk SC1 Dual is more profitable at $-2.12/day compared to $-3.59/day for the StrongU STU-U2. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.

Obelisk SC1 Dual vs StrongU STU-U2: which runs at a lower noise level?

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

Which is better for home mining, the Obelisk SC1 Dual or StrongU STU-U2?

The Obelisk SC1 Dual scores 31/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 28/100 for the StrongU STU-U2). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.

Obelisk SC1 Dual vs StrongU STU-U2: how much does the efficiency gap matter?

The Obelisk SC1 Dual runs at 818.2 J/TH while the StrongU STU-U2 runs at 228.6 J/TH — a difference of 589.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 72% better efficiency (818 vs 229 J/TH).