The number that catches the eye is not the whole result
Start with 200 TH/s at 3,000 W in A. B runs at 220 TH/s and 3,600 W. Hashrate rises 10%, but power rises 20%. There is no model name attached to these figures: they are two example inputs chosen to make the trade-off visible.
We keep the revenue basis, fee and electricity tariff identical for both. That lets us ask one specific question: does the extra output cover the extra electricity?
| Metric | Profile A | Profile B |
|---|---|---|
| Hashrate, TH/s | 200 | 220 |
| Power, W | 3 000 | 3 600 |
| Dev Fee, % | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Energy, kWh/day | 72 | 86.4 |
| Gross revenue, USD/day | 8.0000 | 8.8000 |
| After Dev Fee, USD/day | 7.7760 | 8.5536 |
| Electricity, USD/day | 5.7600 | 6.9120 |
| After fee and electricity, USD/day | 2.0160 | 1.6416 |
At USD 0.08/kWh, the power bill wins
After the example developer fee, B adds USD 0.7776 of daily revenue. Its extra 600 W consumes 14.4 kWh per day, costing USD 1.152 at this tariff. The difference is USD 0.3744 less per miner per day.
The faster profile still has a positive operating result. It simply leaves less than A after the costs included here. This distinction matters: a profile can be working as intended and still be the weaker choice at your tariff.
The small daily gap becomes visible across a fleet
For 100 identical miners over 30 days, the difference is 0.3744 × 100 × 30 = USD 1,123.20. There is no extra performance assumption hidden in that fleet number. It is the same daily difference repeated across the device count and period.
We set other daily costs to zero for this demonstration. Add the relevant costs in your own calculation, and compare mixed models in separate groups. The result is an operating scenario, not a payback estimate for buying the equipment.
At USD 0.04/kWh, the same choice flips
Now electricity costs half as much. B's extra 14.4 kWh costs USD 0.576 per day, while its additional revenue remains USD 0.7776. B leads by USD 0.2016 per miner per day, or USD 604.80 for 100 miners over 30 days.
The two profiles are equal at USD 0.054/kWh: 0.7776 / 14.4. Below that tariff B leads; above it A leads. That is the crossover between these two profiles, not a universal mining tariff or the break-even point of either device.
| Tariff, USD/kWh | A, USD/day | B, USD/day | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.040 | 4.8960 | 5.0976 | B |
| 0.054 | 3.8880 | 3.8880 | Equal |
| 0.080 | 2.0160 | 1.6416 | A |
Use your tariff before choosing your next preset
Open our calculator and enter both profiles from the same hardware and a comparable measurement window. Use power at the same measurement boundary, hashrate in TH/s and gross revenue before the developer fee. Check the actual fee for each profile rather than borrowing our example rate.
First compare one miner. Then use the fleet count to see the size of the decision. If a profile looks promising, choose the exact firmware for your model and board in our catalogue, and check the result on your device.
Recreate this example in the calculator
- A: 200 TH/s, 3,000 W, Dev Fee 2.8%.
- B: 220 TH/s, 3,600 W, Dev Fee 2.8%.
- Gross revenue: USD 0.04 per TH/s/day.
- Tariff: USD 0.08/kWh. Then try 0.04.
- 100 miners, 30 days, other costs: 0.
The calculator opens with its own example values. Enter the inputs above, then replace them with your own.
Open the calculator →