Celeron G1620 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85

Celeron G1620 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 Performance Spectrum

Celeron G1620

2 / 2

1,586

+0.1%

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85

2 / 2

1,585

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron G1620 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron G1620 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron G1620

2012

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1), while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Intel Stock), unlike Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $52 MSRP, while Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2650% higher power demand at 55W vs 2W.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 55W, a 53W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,585 vs 1,586).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Celeron G1620.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1620 better than Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85?

Yes. Celeron G1620 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron G1620 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.7% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron G1620 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1620 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $52 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (30.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron G1620 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2012 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron G1620 vs Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron G1620

The Celeron G1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 December 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,586 points. Launch price was $208.

Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85

The Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Puma (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1g2. Thermal design power (TDP): 2 MB. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,585 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron G1620 and Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the Celeron G1620 versus 2.3 GHz on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 — a 16% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620. The Celeron G1620 uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 uses Puma (2008−2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G1620 scores 1,586 against the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85's 1,585 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron G1620. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620 vs 0 kB on the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+17%	2.3 GHz
Base Clock	2.7 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	0 kB
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	2 MB+700%
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Puma (2008−2009)
PassMark	1,586	1,585
Geekbench 6 Single	441	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	760	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron G1620 uses the LGA1155 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 uses S1g2 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron G1620	Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85
Socket	LGA1155	S1g2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, EPT (Celeron G1620) / not specified (Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85). The Celeron G1620 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge GT1)), while the Turion X2 Ultra ZM-85 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620 targets Desktop. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620 rivals Pentium G2030.