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.