AMD EPYC 7642 vs Intel Xeon 6737P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 6737P dominates this comparison, winning 14 of the 16 recorded benchmark tests. Its lead is not marginal; in several workloads, the margin exceeds 40%. The AMD EPYC 7642 takes only two wins, both in PassMark data tasks, but they are meaningful for specific server roles.

Starting with the most lopsided result, the Xeon 6737P posts a PassMark physics score of 9362 against the EPYC 7642's 5098, a 83.6% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Physics simulation workloads clearly favor the Intel part's architecture and higher boost clock.

In Cinebench tests, the pattern is uniform. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core variants, the Xeon 6737P wins by exactly 35.4%. The multi-core scores tell the story: 6822 versus 5037 in R15, 28428 versus 20989 in R20, and 67688 versus 49975 in R23. The single-core results follow the same 35.4% gap, with 963 versus 711 in R15 and 4013 versus 2963 in R20. A 35.4% lead in every Cinebench metric indicates a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark extended instructions show the second-largest gap. The Xeon 6737P scores 105453, while the EPYC 7642 manages 68841, a 53.2% difference. This matters for workloads that rely on AVX-512 or other wide instruction paths. Floating-point math also favors Intel heavily: 258811 versus 181887, a 42.3% lead. Prime number finding is another Intel win at 697 versus 496, a 40.5% margin.

Single-thread performance is a clear Intel strength. PassMark single-thread scores are 3048 versus 2052, a 48.5% advantage. The boost clock difference explains part of this: the Xeon 6737P boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the EPYC 7642 tops out at 3.40 GHz. PassMark multithread follows the Cinebench pattern at 35.4% (79634 versus 58795). Integer math is closer, with Intel ahead 330756 versus 305303, an 8.3% margin. Random string sorting is also an Intel win, 129510 versus 114871, a 12.7% edge.

The AMD EPYC 7642's two victories are worth examining. Data compression goes to AMD, 1195584 versus 1157255, a 3.2% margin. This is the closest result in the entire head-to-head set. Data encryption is a more decisive AMD win: 86397 versus 65615, a 24.1% advantage. Encryption workloads often benefit from the EPYC's larger L3 cache and higher core count. These two wins, while narrow in the case of compression, show that the EPYC 7642 retains relevance in data-centric server tasks.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture. The Xeon 6737P averages 140694 across its recorded benchmarks, placing it at the 98th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The EPYC 7642 averages 124006, at the 97th percentile. The 16-point percentile gap understates the performance difference in most workloads, but the EPYC's 97th percentile ranking confirms it remains a strong processor in absolute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Xeon 6737P wins 14 of 16 head-to-head tests. The AMD EPYC 7642 wins only two: PassMark data compression and data encryption.

Q: How large is the Intel advantage in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Xeon 6737P leads by 35.4% in all three Cinebench multi-core tests: R15 (6822 versus 5037), R20 (28428 versus 20989), and R23 (67688 versus 49975).

Q: In which workload does the AMD EPYC 7642 perform best relative to the Intel part?

A: Data encryption shows the AMD's largest win, scoring 86397 versus 65615, a 24.1% advantage. Data compression is closer, with AMD ahead by 3.2% (1195584 versus 1157255).

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Xeon 6737P leads by 48.5% in PassMark single-thread tests (3048 versus 2052). Cinebench single-core tests also show a 35.4% Intel lead across R15, R20, and R23.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is PassMark physics, where the Xeon 6737P scores 9362 versus 5098, an 83.6% advantage for Intel. The second-largest is PassMark extended instructions at 53.2%.

Q: How do the processors rank in the overall database?

A: The Xeon 6737P sits at the 98th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 140694. The EPYC 7642 sits at the 97th percentile with an average score of 124006.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon 6737P is the faster processor in nearly every measured workload. Its 14-to-2 win record, combined with a 35.4% or greater lead in all Cinebench tests and a 48.5% single-thread advantage, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy server and workstation tasks. The physics test result, an 83.6% Intel lead, reinforces this verdict for simulation and scientific workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7642 should be selected only when its specific strengths matter. Data encryption is its standout result, a 24.1% win over Intel. Data compression also favors AMD, though the 3.2% margin is slim. For servers that primarily handle encrypted data streams or compression workloads, the EPYC 7642 remains competitive.

The Xeon 6737P's 98th percentile ranking versus the EPYC's 97th percentile is a small gap in overall standing, but the head-to-head deltas are large. The average benchmark scores, 140694 versus 124006, show a 13.5% overall advantage for Intel. Buyers needing maximum throughput across general compute, single-thread responsiveness, or floating-point math should favor the Xeon 6737P. Buyers running encryption-heavy data pipelines may find the EPYC 7642's encryption advantage worth the trade-off elsewhere.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon 6737P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7642 has 48 cores and 96 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Intel part wins most multi-threaded benchmarks, indicating higher per-core efficiency.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The Xeon 6737P has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The EPYC 7642 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The 0.60 GHz boost clock difference contributes to Intel's single-thread dominance.

Thermal design power differs, with the Xeon 6737P rated at 270 watts and the EPYC 7642 at 225 watts. The Intel part draws more power but delivers higher performance in most tests. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC.

Memory support diverges by generation. The Xeon 6737P uses DDR5 with eight-channel memory and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7642 uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The Intel part's memory bandwidth is exactly double the AMD part's.

PCIe capabilities differ. The Xeon 6737P supports Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7642 supports Gen 4, with no lane count specified in the database. The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Process technology also differs. The Xeon 6737P is built on a 5 nm process at Intel, while the EPYC 7642 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel die size is 598 mm², while the AMD die size is 74 mm². The EPYC 7642 has 3,800 million transistors listed; the Xeon 6737P has no transistor count recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6737P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 6 generation (Granite Rapids-SP). The AMD EPYC 7642 uses the Zen 2 architecture, part of the EPYC 7002 series with the codename Rome. These are fundamentally different design generations, with Intel's part released much later.

Cache layouts diverge significantly. The Xeon 6737P has 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 144 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7642 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has substantially more L3 cache (256 MB versus 144 MB), which likely contributes to its data compression and encryption wins.

The Intel part's per-core L2 cache is 4 times larger than the AMD part's (2 MB versus 512 KB per core). This large L2 cache helps explain the Intel advantage in single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads. The EPYC's larger L3 cache, combined with 48 cores, gives it an edge in cache-heavy data tasks.

Memory architecture differs by generation. The Xeon 6737P pairs Granite Rapids with DDR5 memory and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7642 pairs Zen 2 with DDR4 memory and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part's memory bandwidth advantage is a direct result of the newer memory standard.

PCIe generation also reflects the architectural gap. Intel provides Gen 5 connectivity with 88 lanes, while AMD provides Gen 4. The Intel part's integrated graphics are listed as N/A, and the EPYC 7642 has no integrated graphics listed.

The process node difference is notable: Intel uses 5 nm, while AMD uses 7 nm from TSMC. The Intel die is much larger at 598 mm² versus 74 mm² for AMD, reflecting the different design approaches. Intel integrates more per-core cache and uses a monolithic die, while AMD's chiplet design results in a smaller die size per chiplet.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6737P wins in general compute, rendering, and single-threaded applications. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 results all show a 35.4% lead. PassMark multithread also shows 35.4%, and PassMark single-thread shows 48.5%. These benchmarks cover rendering, content creation, and general productivity workloads. The Xeon is the clear pick for these tasks.

The Intel part also wins in math-intensive and scientific workloads. PassMark floating-point math shows a 42.3% advantage, and extended instructions show a 53.2% lead. Prime number finding, a pure integer workload, favors Intel by 40.5%. For simulation, financial modeling, or any floating-point-heavy code, the Xeon 6737P is the better choice.

Physics simulation is the Intel's strongest category. The 83.6% lead in PassMark physics suggests the Xeon 6737P is exceptionally well suited for physics engines in engineering and scientific applications. Integer math is closer but still an Intel win at 8.3%. Random string sorting goes to Intel by 12.7%, covering text processing and data shuffling workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7642 wins in exactly two categories, but both are data-centric. Data encryption shows a 24.1% advantage, making the EPYC 7642 the better choice for encryption-heavy workloads such as secure data transfer, VPN termination, or database encryption. Data compression is a narrower 3.2% win, but it still favors AMD for compression and decompression pipelines.

The EPYC 7642's larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 144 MB) and higher core count (48 versus 32) underpin these wins. The AMD part also has lower TDP at 225 watts versus 270 watts, which may matter in power-constrained environments, though the database does not record efficiency metrics. For workloads that fit in the EPYC's larger cache and benefit from more physical cores, the AMD part holds its ground.

In summary, the Xeon 6737P is the default choice for most server and workstation roles, with decisive wins in rendering, math, physics, and single-thread performance. The EPYC 7642 is the specialist choice for data encryption and compression, where its cache and core advantages translate into measurable wins. The 14-to-2 benchmark split leaves little ambiguity about which processor is faster overall.