AMD EPYC 8434P vs Intel Xeon 6737P Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in overall benchmark terms: the Intel Xeon 6737P wins 13 of the 16 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench run and the PassMark multithread test. The AMD EPYC 8434P wins only three tests, but they are highly specialized ones: data compression, data encryption, and integer math. The Intel part is not merely faster on average; it is faster by a consistent margin of 16.5% across every Cinebench R15/R20/R23 test, both single-core and multi-core. The AMD part counters with a 48.2% win in data encryption and a 22.1% win in data compression, making it the clear choice for workloads that are heavy on cryptographic operations or lossless compression. For general-purpose server work, rendering, physics simulation, or any task where the PassMark suite is representative, the Xeon 6737P is the stronger processor.

The two CPUs occupy the same 98th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close — the EPYC 8434P averages 146,881, while the Xeon 6737P averages 140,694, a difference of only 4.4% in favor of AMD. The Intel chip’s advantage is concentrated in single-threaded and multi-threaded throughput, while AMD’s advantage is in specific memory-touching and crypto workloads. This is a classic "choose by workload" situation, not a "one is strictly better" situation. The Xeon is the default pick for broad multi-core performance; the EPYC is the pick for specialized data-processing tasks.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 8434P is built on the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, using a 5 nm process from TSMC. It is a 48-core, 96-thread part with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz, and it draws 200 W. The chip is composed of four dies, each 73 mm², totaling 35,500 million transistors. The Intel Xeon 6737P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, also on a 5 nm process but fabricated by Intel, with a single 598 mm² die. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, a base clock of 2.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, with a 270 W TDP.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The EPYC 8434P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. The Xeon 6737P has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has more L1 and L2 per core, and more total L3, which likely contributes to its 16.5% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests despite having 16 fewer cores. The EPYC compensates with 48 cores and 96 threads, giving it a raw thread-count advantage that shows up in integer math and compression.

Memory and I/O also differ. The EPYC 8434P uses a six-channel DDR5 memory bus with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon 6737P uses an eight-channel DDR5 bus with 409.6 GB/s — nearly double the bandwidth. The EPYC offers 96 Gen 5 PCIe lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon offers 88 Gen 5 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC sits in AMD Socket SP6, the Xeon in Intel Socket 4710. The EPYC launched on 2023-09-17, the Xeon on 2025-02-23, so the Intel part is nearly a year and a half newer.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6737P wins decisively in every rendering and compute benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 67,688 versus 56,516 for AMD, a 16.5% margin. The same 16.5% margin appears in R15 multi-core (6,822 vs 5,696), R20 multi-core (28,428 vs 23,736), and R20 single-core (4,013 vs 3,350). Single-core performance is a clear Intel win: 963 vs 804 in R15, 3,048 vs 2,448 in PassMark single-thread. The Xeon also dominates floating-point math (258,811 vs 215,669, a 16.7% lead) and extended instructions (105,453 vs 86,189, an 18.3% lead). The most lopsided Intel wins are in find prime numbers (697 vs 298, a 57.2% lead) and physics (9,362 vs 4,036, a 56.9% lead). These are massive margins that indicate the Xeon’s per-core efficiency and clock-speed advantage are decisive in latency-sensitive, single-threaded, and math-heavy workloads.

The AMD EPYC 8434P wins where core count and memory-access patterns matter more than raw clock speed. In data encryption, it scores 97,254 versus 65,615 for Intel, a 48.2% lead. In data compression, it scores 1,412,835 versus 1,157,255, a 22.1% lead. In integer math, it scores 385,290 versus 330,756, a 16.5% lead. These are workloads that often scale with core count and benefit from the EPYC’s 48 cores and 96 threads. The EPYC also wins the average benchmark score comparison (146,881 vs 140,694), which suggests that its three specialized wins carry enough weight to offset the Xeon’s many smaller wins.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The Intel Xeon 6737P wins 13 of 16 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench R15/R20/R23 tests and PassMark multithread. It leads by 16.5% in every Cinebench test and by 19.7% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 8434P beat the Intel Xeon?

A: The EPYC 8434P wins three tests: data compression (1,412,835 vs 1,157,255, a 22.1% lead), data encryption (97,254 vs 65,615, a 48.2% lead), and integer math (385,290 vs 330,756, a 16.5% lead).

Q: How do their core counts and clocks compare?

A: The EPYC has 48 cores and 96 threads with a 2.50 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. The Xeon has 32 cores and 64 threads with a 2.90 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The Xeon has a 270 W TDP; the EPYC has a 200 W TDP.

Q: Which CPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon 6737P has an eight-channel DDR5 bus with 409.6 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 8434P has a six-channel DDR5 bus with 230.4 GB/s. The Xeon offers nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The EPYC 8434P averages 146,881, which is 4.4% higher than the Xeon’s 140,694. Both sit in the 98th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 8434P has 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6737P has 88 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest Intel win is in PassMark physics, where the Xeon 6737P scores 9,362 versus the EPYC’s 4,036 — a 56.9% margin. This is the single largest gap in the entire comparison and suggests the Xeon’s higher clock speed (4.00 GHz boost vs 3.10 GHz) is massively beneficial for physics simulation, which is typically latency-bound. The second-largest Intel win is in find prime numbers: 697 vs 298, a 57.2% lead. These two tests alone indicate that the Xeon’s per-core integer throughput is in a different class. In extended instructions, the Xeon leads 105,453 vs 86,189 (18.3%), and in floating-point math it leads 258,811 vs 215,669 (16.7%). The Cinebench suite is a clean sweep for Intel: R15 multi-core 6,822 vs 5,696, R15 single-core 963 vs 804, R20 multi-core 28,428 vs 23,736, R20 single-core 4,013 vs 3,350, and R23 multi-core 67,688 vs 56,516. Every one of these is exactly a 16.5% margin, indicating a consistent performance-per-clock advantage.

The AMD EPYC’s biggest win is in data encryption, where it scores 97,254 versus 65,615 — a 48.2% lead. This is a huge margin and likely reflects the advantage of having 48 cores and 96 threads for parallelizable cryptographic workloads. The second-largest AMD win is in data compression: 1,412,835 vs 1,157,255, a 22.1% lead. The third win is integer math: 385,290 vs 330,756, a 16.5% lead. The EPYC also wins the average benchmark score comparison (146,881 vs 140,694), despite losing 13 of 16 tests. This happens because the EPYC’s three wins are in high-weight tests (data compression and encryption have large raw scores), while the Xeon’s wins in physics and prime numbers have smaller absolute values.

Random string sorting is nearly a tie: the Xeon wins 129,510 vs 125,932, a margin of only 2.8%. This is the closest test in the entire comparison and suggests that memory-access patterns are similar for this workload. The PassMark multithread test goes to Intel: 79,634 vs 66,490, a 16.5% lead. The single-thread test also goes to Intel: 3,048 vs 2,448, a 19.7% lead.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in every major specification except for process node (both 5 nm) and memory type (both DDR5). The AMD EPYC 8434P has 48 cores and 96 threads; the Intel Xeon 6737P has 32 cores and 64 threads. The EPYC has a lower base clock (2.50 GHz vs 2.90 GHz) and a lower boost clock (3.10 GHz vs 4.00 GHz). The EPYC draws 200 W; the Xeon draws 270 W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6; the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710. The EPYC is Zen 4c (Siena); the Xeon is Granite Rapids. The EPYC is fabricated by TSMC; the Xeon by Intel.

The EPYC has 35,500 million transistors spread across four 73 mm² dies; the Xeon has a single 598 mm² die with no transistor count listed. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 128 MB of shared L3; the Xeon has 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 144 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth; the Xeon has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC has 96 Gen 5 PCIe lanes; the Xeon has 88. Both support ECC. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Xeon lists "N/A" for integrated graphics. The EPYC launched on 2023-09-17 with a launch MSRP of $2700; the Xeon launched on 2025-02-23 with a launch MSRP of $4995. The EPYC part number is 100-000000877; the Xeon part number is SRVNZ. Both are Active in production and locked multipliers.