Ive been wanting to upgrade my xp2400 for months but now i finaly have the dollar to do it i am totaly lost as to what I want to buy. I obviously have the right motherboard for the xp 3200 but for the price on ebay £67 + 10 P+P + £10 for fan I could buy a chip from the states (AMD 64 3000 ) for around £55. However if I buy a 64 bit chip it means changing the m/board which i ahve done far too often for my liking. Wiill i see signifcant ganins over an AMD Athlon XP 3200 if I buy a AMD 3000 64 or will I need to venture into the higer spec like 3200 / 3400 / or 3500? Any help would be fantastic!

you will be kicking yourself in the but when the 64 bit windows comes out if you stay with an xp. you would see gains against a 3000 64bit over a 3200xp. i would go with a 64 bit. it is the best route. if you would like to see a benchmark chart go here http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html?modelx=33&model1=64&model2=75&chart=19 p4 3.0ghz @ 222X15=3330mhz 512mb pc3200 dual channel @222mhz 80gb wd hdd/40gb maxtor when on linux 8x agp geforce 6200 Audigy 2 ZS dvd and cd burner "im just a kid" and 15 at that

Upgrading from a 2400+ to another Athlon XP processor is money NOT well spent, depending on your board you may able to accomplish the same or something pretty close by simply overclocking the 2400+. I missed out on a 745 board on ebay just the other day ($28.00 + S/H), but I'll keep watching. Even though you may need to get another board if you go with the 64-bit platform, it is still a wiser option than a 3200+ upgrade. You did say you are on a tight budget, my advice is to get a 754 motherboard and an entry level 64-bit processor like the 2800+ or 3000+, your Athlon XP 2400+ is no match for any of those two processors. Lastly, oftentimes here I see significant gains being misconstrued as beneficial gains when upgrade questions are asked. The fact is, there is a significant difference between an Athlon XP 2400+ and the lowest clocked Athlon 64 processor, how it benefits you depends on what your PC is used for and what other components you have. ‹•¿•›.......Do not type anything in this space.......‹•¿•›

Thanks for the advice guys! I looked on Tom's Hardware Guide and the AMD 3200 2.0GHZ Winchester Chip seems a good option as its a 939 chip meaning im going to have to get a slightly better board. Ig uess it also means that when I come to upgrade my Graphics card I can take advantage of PCI-E. I'm basicly looking for a gaming system on a tight budget but if I can cut corners I will, IE buying from the states which has much more bang for buck than over here in the UK... although things do tend to go missing now and again. So, all in all if i was to get the AMD 3200 2.0 GHZ winchester chip and say a 6600 GT 128mb PCI-E with 1024MB DDR 400 it would be a bad gaming system? one more note i forgot to ask, whats the deal with windows XP-64? Can you downoad it on a beta version or is it a pay for jobby? Thanks Guys Aaron

You would see a difference with the XP 3200 mainly because of increased cache, but most importantly higher bus speed. Athlon 64's also overclock exceptionally well, where as you're not gonna be able to do a whole lot with an XP 3200 over its current stock speed. It's really gonna come down to what you're using your computer for, and how much would you enjoy the increased speed. Economically speaking strictly, it's hard to justify going to Athlon 64 for what it's gonna cost you. Like it or not, your system will need a major overhaul sooner or later. You're gonna have to jump to new memory, PCI-e gfx card, new motherboard, etc. etc. Buying the 3200 CPU will get you a moderate speed increase and delay the inevitable cost effectively. If you go Athlon 64 now, are you willing to buy a new gfx card to move to PCI-e? Are you willing to spend the money necessary to get a Socket 939 motherboard that's upgradeable (Nforce3 Ultra/Nforce4 Ultras) The other key point to remember about cost is if you do go to a whole new motherboard, CPU, fan, don't forget those parts have resale value. You won't get much at all for just a 2400 CPU with no motherboard. ;-) I faced a somewhat similar decision - I had a 2500 XP overclocked to a little better than 3200 specs. My video card was a 9800 Pro, and I had 1GB of PC3500 RAM. My motherboard died, so the question was spend $60 for a new motherboard and stay where I was, or jump to Athlon 64. Well, I sold my 2500 XP Mobile CPU, 9800 Pro AGP video, and Volcano 12 heatsink/fan for $170, and reused my RAM on an Athlon 64 3000+ Venice, and an Nforce4 Ultra mobo, and a 6600GT PCI-e video card. Cost was $400 - $170 = $230, and that to me was justifiable for the speed increase for the CPU, the better video card, and the much better upgrade path for my CPU (at least to an FX-55 on the motherboard), and PCI-e gfx card. It also put off me having to buy new memory, as Nforce4 Ultras still use DDR, not DDR2. "President Bush is doing everything he can to lower gas prices, including...making the oil companies so rich that maybe they'll get sick of money."

Aaron - If you do go Athlon 64, go socket 939, and I would recommend the Venice core, not the Winchester. Venice's run cooler (and therefore overclock better), and add SSE3 instructions. My Venice can so far hit 250MHz bus without so much as a voltage increase. This is with the retail boxed stock cooler!!! There was no evidence the CPU had even scratched its potential at that point, but unfortunately my motherboard bumps my memory down to 333 at anything over 220MHz bus, so I stopped experimenting at 250MHz. :-/ "President Bush is doing everything he can to lower gas prices, including...making the oil companies so rich that maybe they'll get sick of money."

Thanks for all your help fellas! i'm going to bid on this winchester chip (cant find a venice anwhere) which is at about $130 / £71 + £50 for a M/board + a good fan will be about £15 so all in all around £140 mark. As for the graphics card, im still un sure on what to get, any comments?