Giant A900 vs SC1 Immersion
Side-by-side mining comparison: specs, per-algorithm benchmarks, efficiency and current profitability.
| Type | ASIC | ASIC | |
| Power | 217 W | 1600 W | |
| Release | 2016-10 | 2019-03 | |
| Best opportunity |  DASHNetwork |  SCNetwork | |
| Profit/day | $-0.41 | $-0.24 | |
| Score | 49/100 | 43/100 | |
| View details → | View details → |
Benchmarks by algorithm
Best available benchmark per device; efficiency = hashrate per watt.
| Algorithm | Giant A900 | SC1 Immersion | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blake (2b-Sia) | not supported | 2.2 TH/s1600 W · 1.375 GH/s/W | |
| Blake (2b) | not supported | 2.2 TH/s1600 W · 1.375 GH/s/W | |
| Quark | 900 MH/s132 W · 6.818 MH/s/W | not supported | |
| Qubit | 900 MH/s146 W · 6.164 MH/s/W | not supported | |
| X11 | 900 MH/s217 W · 4.147 MH/s/W | not supported | |
| X13 | 900 MH/s255 W · 3.529 MH/s/W | not supported | |
| X14 | 900 MH/s263 W · 3.422 MH/s/W | not supported | |
| X15 | 900 MH/s270 W · 3.333 MH/s/W | not supported | |
| X17 | 900 MH/s263 W · 3.422 MH/s/W | not supported |