AMD EPYC 9255 vs Intel Xeon 6737P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6737P and AMD EPYC 9255 occupy the same server and workstation segment and sit within touching distance of each other in the database rankings, yet the recorded data shows two clearly different machines. The Xeon 6737P wins 13 of the 16 head-to-head benchmarks, dominating compute-heavy workloads with margins as large as 41.1 percent, while the EPYC 9255 counters with decisively better single-thread speed and a physics result that favors it. The story is not simply "Intel wins": it is a contest between the Xeon's greater core count and raw compute throughput on one side, and the EPYC's higher clocks, leaner power envelope, and far wider I/O and memory infrastructure on the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon 6737P sweeps every Cinebench test in the database. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it posts 6822 against 6483, a 5.2 percent win, and the identical 5.2 percent margin repeats across R15 single-core (963 vs 915), R20 multi-core (28428 vs 27013), R20 single-core (4013 vs 3813), and R23 multi-core (67688 vs 64318). The consistency of that gap across three Cinebench generations indicates a stable, structural advantage in rendering-style throughput rather than a one-off result.

The PassMark suite is where the gulf widens. Floating point math is the Xeon's biggest win: 258811 versus 183367, a 41.1 percent lead. Extended instructions tells the same story at 105453 versus 75185, a 40.3 percent gap, which is significant for any workload built on vectorized or SIMD-heavy code paths. Find prime numbers goes to the Xeon by 20.2 percent (697 vs 580), data compression by 13.6 percent (1157255 vs 1018904), data encryption by 10 percent (65615 vs 59668), and integer math by 7.9 percent (330756 vs 306442). The overall PassMark multithread score lands at 79634 for the Xeon against 76580 for the EPYC, a 4 percent edge, and random string sorting is effectively a tie at 129510 vs 129202, a 0.2 percent difference.

The EPYC 9255 takes three results, and two of them matter a great deal. Its single-thread score of 3655 beats the Xeon's 3048 by 16.6 percent, the largest margin in either direction across the entire head-to-head set. Any workload bound by per-thread speed, from lightly threaded application logic to latency-sensitive transactions, favors the EPYC clearly. Its other win is PassMark physics at 9740 versus 9362, a 3.9 percent lead. Against the wider field, the Xeon's average benchmark score of 140694 places it in the 98th percentile of all CPUs in the database, ahead of rivals such as the Intel Xeon 674X (143103 average, 1.7 percent above it) and the Intel Xeon 6732P (143444, 1.9 percent above it). The EPYC's average of 116388 puts it in the 97th percentile, essentially level with the Intel Xeon 658X (0.3 percent delta) and ahead of the Intel Xeon 6527P by 1 percent.

Architecture Differences

These are two fundamentally different server designs. The Xeon 6737P is a Granite Rapids-SP part built on Intel's 5 nm process, with a single 598 mm² die. It carries 32 cores and 64 threads, a 2.90 GHz base clock and a 4.00 GHz boost. Its cache hierarchy is generous per core: 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 144 MB of shared L3.

The EPYC 9255 is a Zen 5 Turin processor fabbed by TSMC on a 4 nm process, using a chiplet layout of four 70.6 mm² dies and a total of 33,260 million transistors. It has fewer cores at 24 with 48 threads, but clocks substantially higher: a 3.25 GHz base and a 4.80 GHz boost. That 0.8 GHz boost advantage is precisely what drives its 16.6 percent single-thread win, partially offsetting the Xeon's eight extra cores in multi-threaded tests. Its per-core cache is smaller, at 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with 128 MB of shared L3.

The platform story strongly favors AMD. The EPYC runs a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, against the Xeon's eight-channel DDR5 at 409.6 GB/s, a difference that directly benefits memory-hungry virtualization and database workloads. PCIe connectivity is also wider on the EPYC: 128 Gen 5 lanes versus 88 Gen 5 lanes on the Xeon, giving it room for more accelerators, NICs, and NVMe devices. Both support ECC memory and neither ships with integrated graphics. The Xeon fits Intel Socket 4710 and the EPYC fits AMD Socket SP5, so the two are not platform-interchangeable. Power draw diverges as well: the Xeon is rated at 270 W TDP while the EPYC sits at 200 W. Both launched recently, the EPYC on 2024-10-09 and the Xeon on 2025-02-23, and both carry a launch MSRP in the database: $4995 for the Xeon 6737P and $2495 for the EPYC 9255.

The Verdict

The data points to the Xeon 6737P for throughput-bound compute. It wins 13 of 16 recorded benchmarks, including all five Cinebench results, and posts crushing margins in floating point (41.1 percent) and extended instructions (40.3 percent). With an average benchmark score of 140694 against 116388, roughly a 21 percent overall gap in the database's aggregate metric, it is the stronger choice for rendering, scientific computation, simulation, and any vectorized workload where per-socket compute is the metric that matters.

The EPYC 9255 is the pick where responsiveness and platform capacity dominate. Its 16.6 percent single-thread lead is the single largest margin in the dataset, its 200 W TDP is far lower than the Xeon's 270 W, and its twelve-channel memory with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth plus 128 PCIe 5 lanes give it headroom the Xeon cannot match. For latency-sensitive services, per-core licensed software, memory-bandwidth-bound databases, or dense I/O expansion, the recorded data favors the EPYC. Neither CPU is unlocked, so clock tuning is off the table for both.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6737P | AMD EPYC 9255 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores / Threads | 32 / 64 | 24 / 48 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.25 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 270 W | 200 W |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 5 (Turin) |

| Process Node | 5 nm (Intel) | 4 nm (TSMC) |

| Die Layout | 598 mm² single die | 4x 70.6 mm² chiplets, 33,260 million transistors |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 144 MB shared | 128 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel DDR5 | Twelve-channel DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 lanes | Gen 5, 128 lanes |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $4995 | $2495 |

| Part Number | SRVNZ | 100-000000694 |

Both use DDR5 with ECC, target the server and workstation segment, remain in active production, ship without integrated graphics, and have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall in the benchmark database? A: The Intel Xeon 6737P. Its average benchmark score is 140694 versus 116388 for the EPYC 9255, and it wins 13 of 16 head-to-head tests.

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded work? A: The AMD EPYC 9255, by a wide margin. It scores 3655 in PassMark single-thread against the Xeon's 3048, a 16.6 percent lead, consistent with its 4.80 GHz boost clock versus 4.00 GHz.

Q: Where is the Xeon's biggest advantage? A: Floating point math and extended instructions, where it leads by 41.1 percent and 40.3 percent respectively. It also wins every Cinebench test by 5.2 percent.

Q: How do their memory platforms compare? A: The EPYC has a twelve-channel DDR5 bus rated at 576.0 GB/s; the Xeon has an eight-channel DDR5 bus rated at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Do they use the same socket? A: No. The Xeon 6737P uses Intel Socket 4710 and the EPYC 9255 uses AMD Socket SP5, so each requires its own platform.

Q: Which has more PCIe connectivity? A: The EPYC 9255, with 128 Gen 5 lanes versus 88 Gen 5 lanes on the Xeon 6737P.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon 6737P wins on pure compute throughput. Its wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core, the 41.1 percent floating point lead, the 40.3 percent extended instructions lead, and double-digit wins in data compression, data encryption, and prime number computation make it the data-backed choice for rendering farms, scientific and engineering simulation, financial number crunching, and SIMD-optimized software. Its 144 MB of shared L3 and 2 MB of per-core L2 support exactly these bandwidth-hungry compute patterns.

The EPYC 9255 wins on speed per thread and platform scale. Its 16.6 percent single-thread advantage and 3.9 percent physics win suit it to latency-sensitive services and lightly threaded application stacks, while its 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, 128 PCIe 5 lanes, and 200 W TDP make it the better fit for large-memory databases, virtualization hosts, and storage-heavy deployments where per-socket efficiency and expandability outweigh raw multi-core score. In short: the recorded data gives the Xeon the benchmark chart and the EPYC the infrastructure argument.