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.
Dude, I've told you on three separate replies that you can not possibly use coins OR average difficulty as a measuring tool. How many more ways can I explain that without it sounding insulting? It's just not possible, the fluctuations of difficulty are not predictable and can not be averaged. It can be 25 one block, 125 the next block, then 90 the next, then 300 the next twenty. You can't use it at all as a measuring tool. A simple way to measure is by hashrate and shares submitted AT the pool. It doesn't even need to be concurrent with both miners, it just needs to be at the same pool that uses a static difficulty and not a variable difficulty that the pool regulates.
Also, I haven't heard the 1060, 1070, or 1080 getting big gains from this hsrminer. Seems to work much better on the TI's.