Help Upgrading presario c500 series notebook - Page 5

Alphaprime,

The 945GML listed by some IS listed on HP/Compaq's website and many vendors who sell board 441696-001. Unfortunately, this is not accurate. The physical chip on the board is i940GML. As I said I visually inspected it.

As near as I can tell, the big differences between the two are that i940GML supports only single-core 32-bit processors while i943GML supports 64-bit as well as dual-core chips. A general rule of thumb from what I've seen is that if the the machine came stock with Celeron M 4xx (Yonah core, 32-bit), it's the i940GML. If it came stock with a Celeron M 5xx (Merom core, 64-bit), it's the i943GML.

Apart from their CPU support, the two are otherwise identical. Same video, same RAM max, same everything. Just the i943 will support more and higher powered CPUs, including Socket M Core 2 Duos *from what I've read*.

Mind, I'm not an expert, this is just what I've found. I was VERY interested in making my C500 almost as powerful as my Pavilion DV9700 for more portability. I was very disappointed when I found these limitations. However, I have to agree with you on the audio front. The C500's have an AWESOME audio capability and like you I've been disappointed in every laptop I've had or heard ever since. I keep my C500 around for school and BECAUSE it sounds so awesome. Heh

And one more time,

Upon further digging through HP's parts listing, and one of the online shops I go to now and then, there's a third board out there. 441695-001. HP's site lists this board in use in machines using anything from Celeron M 4xx series chips to Core Duo's. They even list model C503WM as using THIS board (as opposed to 441696-001).

All I can say is there must have been exceptions. I know for certain my C503WM has 441696-001 (and an i940GML) in it. Perhaps there's a reason it was being sold at Sam's Club (Wal-Mart, for those not in the know, which is what the WM stands for I've been told).

This being said, the parts listings obviously have some discrepancies. They don't list the model of board my Pavilion DV9700 had in it at purchase as being USED in DV9700's, yet it's what was in it. 441695-001 MIGHT have more flexibility than 441696-001. Then again, it might not. The only way to know would be to get hold of 441695-001 and 445605-001 and examine their North Bridge chips directly. Or, to have someone post here who has 441695-001 and 445605-001 and have them tell us directly what chip they have and what chips they've been able to run in them.

Just wanted to post this since I found it and this is all about whatever specifics we can find so people don't waste money on chips that won't work in their machines.

comparing the T1350 and celeron 430 on the Intel site, the small increase in clock speed, 2MB cache, and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology are the differences.

I am not sure which MB I have, but it is due to be opened and cleaned.

Is it worth the small upgrade to the T1350?


I am running Win 7 Pro and not dissapointed (huge improvment over Vista!)
3GB ram but Win 7 says only 2GB are being used.
320GB 7200RPM WD HDD.
and the battery has been toast since about 1 year after I bought bought the C503WM new.

media like youtube clips play pretty poorly but video off the harddrive tend to play fine.
I normally have far too many tabs open in firefox.


I dont want to spend much money on it, but I will spend some.

as a side note: OTOH, Id like a newer multi-core laptop, but -BUT I am having difficulty finding non-glossy screens. Why do they think everyone or anyone wants a glossy screen.
I mean I could have got a larger plasma TV over my LCD but te glossy screen really sucks unless you have a blacked out room.

Welcome to NBF lurker!

Thanks.
I could have swore I posted before, but the stats says no.

Jeepsteve92xj,

There is a notable difference between the Core Solo T1350 and the Celeron M 430. It's not a quantum leap, but it was worth the $30 I paid for the CPU in my opinion. The Windows Experience Index rating jumped several notches as well, if anyone really cares about it.

If you want to check your MB number, it SHOULD be on a sticker under the RAM modules when you open up that panel on the bottom. We're looking for the magic xxxxxx-001 number that you may have there.

On a side note: I notice you say you have 3 GB running in the laptop, but Windows 7 only sees 2 GB. According to ALL the information I can find and my own experience, the machine tops out at 2 GB. Any attempt I've made to install more results in a refusal to POST. It will even boot with one 2 GB module in place (and recognize it as 2 GB) but will NOT boot if I try to put ANYTHING in the second slot in that case. If you're running the Celeron M 430 you'd have to be running Windows 7 32-bit, so a reduction from 3 GB would be natural possibly, but are you positive it's 3 GB installed?

If so I'd be VERY interested to learn what board you have installed inside the machine. The information I've seen says that BOTH the i940 and the i943 top out at 2 GB. Perhaps, like 64-bit and dual-core support, the i943 has an UNofficial support for higher RAM totals.

It is 3GB - in Vista, it saw 3GB and used it.
I had XP on for a while an it also saaw and used 3GB

Win 7 SEES 3GB but says only 2 are being used.

The windows experience with vista was something like 1.3
In win 7 it is more like 2.5.

Everything I had read said 2GB was the limit, and the HP help and forums said 2 was it. The memory was cheap so I tried it and no problem posting.

Someone mentioned I shoudl check in the BIOS and see if the Video allocated the third 1GB. I doubt it, but still worth a look.

Ill try and see the board number tonight after work.

That is interesting, and I can only say I can't wait to see if you can tell us what board number you have. If it's 445605-001, I might just rethink buying one. That plus a dual-core chip would make the machine ALMOST the equal of my Pavilion DV9700 for relatively cheap.

My MB is a 441696-001.
here are some screen shots of cpu-z and the windows experience information.
http://s235.photobucket.com/albums/e...92xj/hp-specs/


Has anyone seen a decent 500 - 700 dollar with an antiglare or matte screen?

Steve

Steve,

We have the same board you and I, so that much tracks. I am sad to say that at the moment it seems that you are limited to a Core Solo T1350 as the best upgrade you could do for a processor. Of course, I freely invite anyone with board 441696-001 who might have succeeded otherwise to prove me wrong. I'd LOVE to save money. Heh

And on the RAM: Interesting. Very. I am going to be nabbing a 4 GB RAM stick for my other machine, that will free up at least one 2 GB stick, I will have to try it again and see if I can get the machine to boot with more than 2 GB present. Not that 32-bit Windows can necessarily make use of much more than 2 GB anyway, but if I do the upgrades I WANT to 3 GB would come in handy.

Thanks for the screen shots by the way. I love CPU-Z but I wish there could be some more specifics on the chipset IDs. The "i943/940GML" is very misleading, and the only way I could get the exact model was to eyeball it.

Thanks again!

I bought a Core Solo T1350 CPU (ebay "new" pull $10 shipped) but havent installed it yet. I also have a new pair of hinges that need ot get installed. Seems like a two birds at a time sort of plan.
I should run a benchmark before and after - suggestions on a simple but clear benchmark program? I dont want a all night cycle.

Can't wait. Post some pics along also would you?

cheers ...

Good evening everyone,

So it's been several months. I debated even posting this once I did it because the activity seemed to have died off. However, since there's some life still I thought I'd go ahead and post it now. I also have some pictures of the before and after CPU ID and WEI screens to show (assuming I figure out posting them correctly). I DID take pictures of the system boards and CPUs, but they aren't very clear so I am not posting them here just now (the only camera I had handy was my phone's 2 MP camera, and it likes to blur with the SLIGHTEST shake).

Anyway, a tiny bit of background. After talking about it on here and doing research on the parts in question, I did my taxes and found I had a fair bit more coming back than I thought I would. Long story short, I went ahead and nabbed board 445605-001 from and online shop I go to for older parts. I also chose to go ahead and nab a Core 2 Duo T5600 (1.83 GHz, 667 MHz bus, 2 MB L2 cache) from a different shop after a LOT of debate. The last official BIOS noted support for up to T5500, but I reasoned that, hey, same family just faster. It was a good "gamble."

Anyway, I got the board and chip and proceeded to disassemble my C503WM (which at that time contained a Core Solo T1350 and board 441696-001) and install them both. After a tense moment where I got nothing at POST, I did some RAM swapping (more on that in a moment) and got it running without a fuss. The board came already flashed with BIOS F.24, so support for the Core 2 Duo T5500 was built in. A check of the BIOS revealed the BIOS identifies the T5600 simply as a Core 2 CPU (no Duo), but the chip runs just fine, both cores firing away.

A visual inspection of the board before installation confirmed what I had noted here: 441696-001 contains the i940GML, 445605-001 contains the i943GML. The C2D chips I tested would NOT run on 441696 (I also have a T7200). The T5600 was the only chip I could test on 445605 as the T7200 was in use in another machine by the time I did the upgrade (the testing in 441696 took place weeks apart, with the T5600 being tested in 441696 the same day it was put into 445605).

I note all that because someone here claimed to have a C2D running on 441696. I would love to know how if that's the case because all the information I've read and tested says it can't work. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I just would love clarification. With the info at hand, I have to say it's not possible and I note it as such simply in the interest of keeping people from wasting money on parts that won't work together.

An interesting note RAM wise: In an earlier post, Steve had noted he had 3 GB installed in a 441696 board. After some tinkering here, I too achieved this but, like him, could only get the system to utilise 2 GB of it. Windows 7 reported 3 GB installed, 2 GB usable. Board 445605 will NOT POST with ANY combination of 3 GB of RAM that I have here, including the same combination that WOULD boot on board 441696. If anyone has a combination that WILL work, by all means let us know here please?

So... I think that's about it. Steve: Good luck with your upgrade. You should have no problem getting it up and running. THe T1350 isn't a quantum leap over the Celeron M 430, but the bit of extra muscle is always a nice thing to have regardless. While my CM 430 was a workhorse for me in its time, it IS a Celeron in the end.

Sorry the post is so long, there was just a lot of detail to fit in. Happy upgrading, anyone who chooses to go for it!

PS - Please note that in the attached pictures the board information that CPU-Z reports appears identical. This is a limitation that can't be gotten around unfortunately as the boards are basically the same, just with some updated components and the NB chips are the same family.

Nice update.

It is not surprising that sometime anything other than T5xxx would not run, same thing with the 3GB installed but only 2GB being recognised. You might want to confirm about the ram support by looking into the BIOS and see how many ram is showing up,.

cheers ...

QHN,

Thanks. And on board 441696-001, the BIOS recognized 3 GB of RAM but Windows 7 claimed only 2 GB of it was usable. That tracks with information that the i940GML had a max of only 2 GB of RAM. It seems strange that it would POST and recognize 3 but only allow 2 to be used. The i943GML on the other hand won't even POST with 3 GB installed, period. The system just sits there at a black screen with the power light on.

On a related note: It pays to test and see, regardless of STATED limits, whether a machine will support more RAM or not. According to official information the chipset in my DV 9700 SUPPOSEDLY only supports up to 4 GB max (this is in the Intel official paperwork as well as numerous RAM upgrade sources), yet I have it currently running 6 GB with no issues. I have also had it at 8 GB, though it was just a test before I had to give my father back his RAM stick. Heh

As for the T7200, I SUSPECT that it WOULD work in board 445605-001. I simply did not have it free to test by the time I got the new board and the T5600. The T7200 is now in my mother's desktop, sadly. I would LOVE to have had the extra bit of oomph (T7200 has 4 MB L2 cache and is 2.0 GHz, vs. T5600's 2 MB and 1.83 GHz) as I was doing some virtual machine work in my classes.

There's talk brewing of upgrades, and that desktop may be going out of use. If it does, I will most definitely be pulling my C500 apart again and testing that C2D T7200 in board 445605. If I get to do this, I will definitely post again and let everyone know whether or not it works.

I wonder if you want to review your ram modules, making sure that they are of the same specs, also check in the boot.ini if there is any constraint entry about the amount of ram that Windows can see.

cheers ...

QHN,

Unfortunately, that won't be a help at this point. The board that DID recognize 3 GB (441696-001) is no longer in use, as it does not support Core 2 Duo CPU's. The board CURRENTLY in the system (445605-001) will not post with ANY combination of SO-DIMMs that exceeds 2 GB, regardless of specs. I've tried every combination here that is available, including the set that worked on the OLD board. And obviously, I am not willing to give up Core 2 Duo performance just to be able to POST with 3 GB, whether the system will utilize it or not.

Apart from that, I'm not sure win.ini would make any difference. While it's possible, I suppose, that Windows 7 would have an issue on that chipset (IE some sort of built-in block in Win.ini), in the end we're back to the fact that the system as-is (with the new board) won't even POST with 3 GB, much less attempt to boot Windows.

I DO appreciate the advice, however. IF I ever manage to find a combination of SO-DIMMs that WILL POST on the board, I will check into built-in restrictions on the chance they exist. I've yet to see it in any version of Windows 7 (every installation I've used worked with anything from 1 GB up to 8 GB so far, and even 32-bit should work up to at least 3.5 GB), but ANYTHING is possible where computers are concerned. It's why I love working with them. Heheh

I opened this one up, I can tell a lot about this machine, but i cant find any information about upgrading the processor... Though it can be replaced... Any new words?

ERforComputers,

Welcome to the forum.

There's a lot of information in this thread already, but the short story is as follows: You need to look at the model of motherboard your C500 is equipped with. The label with the number is generally affixed to the board in the area of the RAM slots (you have to REMOVE the RAM to see it).

The following information on which processors will work is based on my own experience:
Board model 441696-001: Celeron M 4xx series and Core Solo series processors utilizing 533 MHz system bus ONLY. 32-bit only.
Board model 445605-001: Celeron M 4xx, Celeron M 5xx, Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo series processors utilizing 533 AND 667 MHz system bus. 32- and 64-bit support.

Please note that ALL motherboards for the C500 series utilize Socket M. This is important as there are models of Core 2 Duo that utilize Socket M, while others utilize Socket P. There is a 1 pin variance, and Socket P chips will NOT fit in Socket M.

I hope this helps in any upgrades you might consider.

Hello OShadowFoxO, I used the Everest program to see which of my video card and ainformação 504US is a 943GML. The motherboard is 441696-001.
Buy a core duo?
Thank you for your help !!!

 

 

 

!