Turion II Ultra M620 vs Apple M4 Max (16 cores)
Aggregate performance score
M4 Max (16 cores) outperforms Turion II Ultra M620 by a whopping 5311% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 251 | 3150 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M4 | AMD Turion II Ultra |
| Power efficiency | 11.77 | 0.56 |
| Designer | Apple | AMD |
| Architecture codename | no data | Caspian (2009) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (1 year ago) | 10 September 2009 (16 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
M4 Max (16 cores) and Turion II Ultra M620 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 3600 MHz |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 45 nm |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M4 Max (16 cores) and Turion II Ultra M620 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Socket | no data | Socket S1 (s1g3) 638-pin |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M4 Max (16 cores) and Turion II Ultra M620. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit, AMD64, PowerNow!, AMD Virtualization |
| PowerNow | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M4 40-core GPU | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.89 | 0.46 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 10 September 2009 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 35 Watt |
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) has a 5310.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
Turion II Ultra M620, on the other hand, has 157.1% lower power consumption.
The Apple M4 Max (16 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Turion II Ultra M620 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
