if anyone was curious i'll be compiling a list of completed projects and its PPD on the 1070 SC.
 
EVGA GTX 1070 SC 
 
9160: 548,798
9162: 603,458
9205: 719,087
9205: 731,320
9212: 542,418
9442: 667,843
9661: 585,755
9704: 636,693
9704: 644,790
9704: 645,873
9704: 638,934
9704: 648,603
10494: 641,117
10494: 645,885
10496: 567,901
11401: 700,339
11418: 643,776
11419: 628,293
11419: 631,978
11423: 762,127
13131: 554,719
13131: 560,008
 
AVG PPD: 634,077
 
 
 
OK, first off my initial testing was off by nearly 10%, 569,252 PPD, because i found out that even though all my hardware was pcie 3.0 compliant the gpu was actually running pcie 2.0 until i forced it to run at 3.0 speeds. if you want a direct unit to unit comparison of pcie 2.0 vs pcie 3.0 look below.
 
PCIE 3.0
9704: 636,693
9704: 644,790 
9704: 645,873 
9704: 638,934 
9704: 648,603
Avg PPD: 642,978
 
PCIE 2.0
9704: 638,585
9704: 572,532
9704: 575,073
9704: 572,382
Avg PPD: 589,643
 
8.295% improvement with the 1070 going form pcie 2.0 to pcie 3.0.
 
 
 
Now for comparison purposes the EVGA GTX 1080 (i assume FE) gets ~796,132 PPD AVG, Data here.
 
With the 1070 avg being 634,077 PPD it is 26% lower than that of the 1080, link to data above. some other useful stats on the 1070 is that its PPD per Watt at 150W full load is 4,227 and its PPD per USD spent is 1,441. On the other hand the 1080 has 4,423 PPD/W and 1,244 PPD/$. with the 1080 achieving 26% higher PPD while only increasing its TDP by 17% to 180 Watts the 1080 wins in efficiency by 5%. BUT it looses in the PPD over cost department! With an increased cost of 48%, $650 vs $440, the 1070 is actually 18% higher in PPD per USD spent.
 
so in conclusion, if efficiency is your goal and cost doesn't matter then the 1080 is the go to folding card right now. but if cost is of concern the 1070's are there to help you out and not break the bank.

I've only got a result for a 970 on 9205 - tpf 6:15 - 333k ppd, looking forward to seeing more results - I'm not in the market for a 1080 at those prices

alas, that 720K unit was a special one and well above the avg i have so far. i got unit 10475 twice so only 4 completed different units thus far. still though, ~600K PPD avg so far is quite nice. i'll keep this list updated for a couple days just so i can get a good avg set.

ok, woke up this morning to see i got unit 9704 three times, so the number posted is its avg like with 10475.
 
also on a side note i noticed that my 1070 is only working at ~60% power and 70C but i am hitting the power/voltage limit consistently... this doesn't make any sense to me and i'll google around or post a topic about it after work. i dont see why im not getting near my power or temp thresholds of 103% and 81C respectively and still have the card throttle itself. so, these PPD's could be on the lower side if i can fix this and get the card to run like i think it should.
 
 

But Temps are well below any thermal threshold and as the chart also shows it never triggers the thermal limit on the card. Also i have a manual fan curve on the card and its currently @84% when temps are ~70C. Something else is amiss here and i'll get to the bottom of it when I can research it properly later tonight.

OK, i got a video for you to watch and i think you'll be as perplexed as i currently am about this power issue.
 
https://youtu.be/t8Iyp3BFF30
 
in short, if you want 100% GPU utilization you'll have to open a youtube video, pause it, and leave it there. otherwise it will drop right back down to ~60%.
 
i did this test after doing the clean driver install again when i got home, just to double make sure no issue there, and i also removed my second monitor, just to eliminate another variable.
 
EDIT: i think i'll run a couple units tonight after doing that workaround thing and see if and by how much the PPD may change.

ya know if i wasn't a gamer i would try it on linux, but alas i must have my games. so i can not personally test this card on a lynix system unless i setup a dual boot for over night testing... not a bad idea, i'll give that a whirl and see if i can not get that to work tonight instead. any easy guide to setup F@H on linux? also which version of linux should i test with, Ubuntu?
 
EDIT: nm, stanford has a good guide on their website, looks simple enough on that side of things. now i just need to remember how to setup dual boots...

Edit2: this isn't as easy as I hoped... I got fahcontrol to run but it isn't seeing the GPU, so I look at what it takes to install a graphics driver and I face palm... why is nothing Linux touches simple or easy...

welp, it failed... dont know why or how but linux will not happen on my machine. 4 hours dealing with code to get stuff to work and failing isn't something i am keen to. So, i'll simply force the GPU to 100% and test a few units overnight and see if that workaround lasts for extended periods of time or not.
 
also that link is to another thread i made about a completely different issue. that walk through just shows how to add multiple GPU's to the FAHControl.

What's the fan noise like on this card? I have a EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 and the fan noise is terrible. Have to fold it in a system in a closed room so I don't hear the fan noise. I have a MSI GTX 960 folding 24/7 in my front room and the fan noise isn't an issue. Wish I had not bought the EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 and don't want to make the same mistake on another EVGA card.

OK, ran another 9 units @100% power and the conclusion is at best a 10% improvement when directly comparing unit 9704 before and after. at worse only 5% improvement on the group avg if you remove the unusually high PPD unit 9205.
 
SO, those numbers should be good enough to say that at best a 1070 may get you around 600K PPD, after a little OCing.

You seem to know what you're doing. I'm also running a 1070, and just installed  last night. The log file in advanced control shows 4 work units completed over night and the point estimates after each one add up to around 290,000... web control shows 46,000 points earned for the team. Does the web control point total only update every so often, or is the point estimate on the advanced log that far off? And do you have any tips to maximize PPD other than OC?

Can you let me know if I'm doing this right. I'm using the advanced log to get start/end times and point estimates for each work unit:
 
10:25:41:WU00:FS01:0x21:Completed 5200 out of 520000 steps (1%)  <- First entry for work unit
11:20:18:WU00:FS01:Cleaning up                                                      <- Last entry for work unit
11:20:18:WU00:FS01:Final credit estimate, 26150.00 points                 <- The final credit estimate for the unit.
It took 55 minutes, so .917 hours
PPD = (24/.917)*26150 = 684,405

Next one
 
11:23:43:WU01:FS01:0x21:Completed 50000 out of 5000000 steps (1%)
16:23:41:WU01:FS01:Cleaning up
16:23:41:WU01:FS01:Final credit estimate, 163188.00 points <- Cancer fighting karma
5 hours pretty much exactly.
PPD = (24/5)*163188 = 783,302
 
 
Is that how you're calculating, or am I using the wrong numbers?  Sorry for the bother, I've just never tried to play with folding but interested in how the 1070 is doing.
 

Wow, hadn't even noticed the 0% lines since they're mixed in the the end of the previous WU. It didn't change the first one at all, but it dropped the second one. Thanks for helping me figure it out, had a few people asking about PPD results with the OC and had no clue.
 
10:25:08:WU00:FS01:0x21:Completed 0 out of 520000 steps (0%)
11:20:18:WU00:FS01:
Final credit estimate, 26150.00 points
It took 55 minutes, so .917 hours
PPD = (24/.917)*26150 = 684,405

Next one
 
11:20:15:WU01:FS01:0x21:Completed 0 out of 5000000 steps (0%)
16:23:41:WU01:FS01:Cleaning up
16:23:41:WU01:FS01:Final credit estimate, 163188.00 points <- Cancer fighting karma
5.05 hours
PPD = (24/5.05)*163188 = 775,546

Your ppd calculations are a tad high. Yes, that is the time to run the WU, but the download, startup, shutdown, and upload all take time which eats into your average.
 
Not trying to find any fault/critic...  just letting you know that your long term actual daily average will be lower based on those logistics, and the WU variability that Chris21010 has listed.
 
thanks for reporting all.

9158  x18 core = 471689 for a 980 ti  (so its 30k points less then the 9157)

10489 = 493380