MagicSmoker, I don't mean to be insulting but you have very little understanding of how to compare miners. Comparing how many coins you get is absolutely useless. Coins mined means nothing, zero, zilch. You can't predict a difficulty level so using coins as a comparison method is worthless. Stop posting about how miners are better or worse by measuring coins, it's silly..
Translation: "I don't mean to be insulting but I'll insult you anyway..."
I did not base my evaluation strictly on the # of coins mined, I based it on that vs. the average difficulty for 24h as reported by minethecoin.com, and then I recursively iterated the hashrate required to get to the actual number of coins.
If there is a flaw in my methodology please take the time to enlighten me rather than merely call me silly and my post worthless.
EDIT - and yes I realize that running the miners concurrently on separate, identical rigs mining to the different wallet addresses on the same pool is the ideal methodology, and maybe I will do that next, but at this point I am not seeing any reason to spend more time on the evaluation given the response so far.
Isn't there a pretty easy way to settle this that will remove unknown factors?
1- Create two different receiving addresses for a wallet in a neoscrypt coin.
2- In a system with two equivalent cards run one instance of hsrminer and one instance of klaust ccminer towards the same pool but use one wallet address for each process.
3- Let it run for an hour
4- Inspect earnings as reported by pool.
This would make both systems run on the same difficulty levels at the same time and therefore remove as many differences as possible. Of course luck will enter into the picture, but I imagine that one hour should be enough to let this even out. Otherwise it's always possible to run longer to rule out luck as a factor (not completely of course but to a reasonable level).