I have read other places that the GTS is a better card... so it is... I had a setup slightly better than yours with a GF2 MX400 64MB card, and my scores were very close to yours... they were not near 1700... I think a little over 1300 was as high as I got.
<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263
I get 4483 in 3DMark2001SE. However I think this is a fair bit lower then what I should be getting. In the details its saying my texel fillrates are 271.8 MTexels/s for single-textureing and 515.2 MTexels/s for multi-textureing. But I'm pretty sure my card should have a fillrate of around 1600 MTexels/s according to everything Ive read. I'm betting if my fillrates were where they should be I'd be getting in the mid-5000 range like I was expecting.
Asus A7N8X-X Nforce2
Athelon 2500+ barton (1.83ghz)
512mb Samsung DDR400
SoundBlaster Live! Value
WD HD 80G 7200rpm 8mb cache
Win XP Home
What drivers you running? On a Ti4200, the 4403 drivers are over 1000 3dmarks higher than the newest drivers. Also much faster than any other version I have tested. If you want the best score in 3dmark2001se on an nvidia graphics card, use the 4403 drivers.
You got suckered into the memory scam eh? God forbid you'll buy an FX5200 with 256MB thinking it will be faster than an old Ti4200 with only 64MB!
<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>