Turing test was created to test machines exhibiting behavior equivalent or indistinguishable from that of a human. Is that the sufficient condition of intelligence?
We don't know.
However, an important line will have been crossed - it will be impossible to tell the difference between an intelligent agent and the machine by use of a text interface. Which is the main point of the test - "if it quacks like a duck".
It is also an important philosophical point. Whether intelligence is defined purely by behaviour in an environment, or by the mechanisms that arrive at that behaviour. A suitably large database of conversational openers and "correct" responses can in theory mimic a lot of real world conversations. Some chatbots take advantage of this and use modern computer capacity to store a lot of responses, and that approach has gained competitive scores in the Loebner prize competition (although not to the stage of actually passing the test). This leads us to the Chinese Room issue, and wondering which part of the system is actually intelligent, or even how much of human conversation is actually intelligent or meaningful (and it what ways).
If intelligence is defined as utility relation to a task, any algorithm can be said to be intelligent.
If the task is convincing a human that an algorithm is human, and the algorithm achieves this goal, it can be said to be strongly intelligent in relation to the task (fooling the human. Here the term strong is used because the algorithm's performance is stronger than the humans. Strength is relative, and Turing Tests are unavoidably subjective.)
However, this does not mean that the algorithm is generally strongly intelligent, because it may not exceed human capability in all tasks.