AMD EPYC 9355P vs Intel Xeon 6737P Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P wins 15 of the 16 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Xeon 6737P claiming a single victory in PassMark floating point math.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the AMD EPYC 9355P consistently leads by 22.1% over the Intel Xeon 6737P, with scores of 8332 vs 6822, 34719 vs 28428, and 82666 vs 67688 respectively.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R15 single-core, the AMD EPYC 9355P scores 1176 against 963 for the Intel Xeon 6737P, a 22.1% advantage. PassMark single-thread tests show a similar 22.9% lead for AMD, with scores of 3747 versus 3048.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile overall?

A: Both chips sit in the 98th percentile among all CPUs in the database, yet the AMD EPYC 9355P has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 160358 compared to 140694 for the Intel Xeon 6737P.

Q: Which processor has the larger cache configuration?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P features 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6737P has 144 MB. The Intel part does have larger per-core L1 and L2 caches at 112 KB and 2 MB respectively, versus 80 KB and 1 MB for AMD.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The AMD EPYC 9355P uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6737P uses an eight-channel DDR5 bus rated at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9355P is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, using a multi-die design comprising eight chiplets, each with a die size of 70.6 mm². The total transistor count reaches 66,520 million, reflecting the density of the 4 nm node. The Intel Xeon 6737P, in contrast, is based on Granite Rapids architecture, belongs to the Xeon 6 generation (Granite Rapids-SP), and is manufactured on Intel's 5 nm process with a monolithic die measuring 598 mm². The database does not list a transistor count for the Intel part, but the die size difference suggests a fundamentally different physical design approach.

Cache hierarchy reveals distinct philosophies. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, then pools a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache across the chip. Intel provides larger per-core caches at 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, but the shared L3 is smaller at 144 MB. For workloads that benefit from large shared pools, the AMD design offers nearly double the L3 capacity. The Intel approach favors per-core locality, which may help certain latency-sensitive tasks.

Memory support diverges significantly. The AMD EPYC 9355P connects to DDR5 through a twelve-channel interface, providing 576.0 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth. The Intel Xeon 6737P uses eight channels, yielding 409.6 GB/s. This 40% bandwidth advantage for AMD could be decisive for memory-bound server workloads, especially in databases or analytics where data movement dominates. Both platforms support ECC memory, as expected in the server segment.

PCIe connectivity also differs. AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes. For systems with many GPUs, NVMe drives, or network adapters, the extra 40 lanes on the AMD platform allow more direct CPU-attached peripherals without needing a switch. Neither processor includes integrated graphics, and both are locked (multiplier unlocked: false), targeting server platforms where overclocking is not a consideration.

The launch dates show a sequence gap: AMD released on 2024-10-09, while Intel followed on 2025-02-23. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $4995, whereas the AMD part lists at $2998. The socket types are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP5, Intel uses Socket 4710, meaning platform choice locks buyers into one ecosystem.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern across the head-to-head results is the consistency of AMD's lead. In all five Cinebench tests (R15 and R20 multi-core and single-core, plus R23 multi-core), the delta is exactly 22.1% in favor of the AMD EPYC 9355P. This uniformity suggests that the performance gap is not workload-specific within rendering tasks, but rather a fundamental throughput difference driven by clock speed and architecture efficiency. The AMD part boosts to 4.40 GHz versus 4.00 GHz for Intel, and its base clock of 3.55 GHz exceeds Intel's 2.90 GHz by a wide margin.

PassMark integer math shows a 24.6% lead for AMD, scoring 412067 against 330756. Data compression follows at 23.6% (1429976 vs 1157255), and data encryption at 23.4% (80961 vs 65615). These three tests share a common theme: they are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth and cache capacity, areas where AMD's twelve-channel memory and larger L3 cache provide structural advantages. The multithread score of 96603 versus 79634 represents a 21.3% gap, closely matching the Cinebench results.

The largest single delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where AMD scores 1044 versus Intel's 697, a 49.8% advantage. Prime number search is notoriously sensitive to integer execution throughput and branch prediction, suggesting the Zen 5 core design handles this workload far more efficiently. Physics simulation shows a 44.4% lead for AMD (13515 vs 9362), another test where raw compute per clock matters. Random string sorting gives AMD a 36.4% edge (176697 vs 129510), pointing to memory access patterns where AMD's cache hierarchy excels.

The sole Intel victory comes in floating point math, where the Xeon 6737P scores 258811 against 256635 for AMD, a narrow 0.8% margin. This is the only test where Intel's per-core FPU capabilities or its 2 MB L2 cache per core provide an edge. Extended instructions show a much closer race: AMD leads by just 2.1% (107622 vs 105453), indicating that SIMD-heavy workloads narrow the gap considerably. Single-thread PassMark gives AMD a 22.9% win (3747 vs 3048), consistent with the Cinebench single-core results.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy: the AMD EPYC 9355P outperforms the Intel Xeon 6737P in 15 of 16 benchmark tests, with an average score advantage of roughly 14% (160358 vs 140694). The only Intel win is marginal at 0.8%, while AMD's wins range from 2.1% to 49.8%. For buyers choosing between these two specific processors, the AMD part is the stronger performer across nearly every measured dimension, including rendering, encryption, compression, integer math, physics, and single-thread speed.

The AMD EPYC 9355P also offers a lower launch MSRP of $2998 versus $4995 for the Intel Xeon 6737P. While the database does not assess value beyond raw scores, the combination of higher performance and lower listed price makes the AMD option compelling for cost-conscious server builds. The Intel part does counter with a larger die (598 mm²) that may indicate different manufacturing economics, but from a benchmark perspective, that does not translate into performance wins.

System integrators should note the platform implications. AMD's Socket SP5 with 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and twelve-channel memory supports more expansion and bandwidth than Intel's Socket 4710 with 88 lanes and eight-channel memory. For dense virtualization, large in-memory databases, or AI inference clusters, the AMD platform provides more headroom. The Intel Xeon 6737P remains a capable processor in its own right, sitting in the 98th percentile, but it trails the AMD part in almost every comparison the database records.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9355P | Intel Xeon 6737P |

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

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Granite Rapids |

| Codename | Turin | Granite Rapids |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin)) | Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 8x 70.6 mm² | 598 mm² |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 3.55 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 270 W |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 144 MB (shared) |

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

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 88 Lanes |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

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

| Launch MSRP | $2998 | $4995 |

| Part Number | 100-000001521 | SRVNZ |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9355P dominates in scenarios that stress memory bandwidth and large shared caches. Data compression, encryption, integer math, and random string sorting all show leads between 23.4% and 36.4%, reflecting the twelve-channel memory controller and 256 MB L3 cache. For virtualization hosts running many concurrent VMs, or analytics workloads that scan large datasets, the AMD part provides a substantial throughput advantage. The 49.8% lead in prime number finding and 44.4% lead in physics indicate that Zen 5's integer execution pipeline is particularly strong, making the AMD chip suitable for scientific computing and simulation workloads that rely on integer operations.

The Cinebench results, all at 22.1% in AMD's favor, cover multi-threaded rendering and single-thread responsiveness. Content creation tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and software compilation would consistently favor the AMD EPYC 9355P. The 22.9% single-thread PassMark lead suggests that lightly threaded applications, such as legacy database queries or single-threaded engineering tools, also run better on AMD.

The Intel Xeon 6737P claims only one narrow victory: floating point math at 0.8% above AMD. This indicates that workloads dominated by dense floating-point calculations, such as certain financial risk models or physics simulations that use FP32/FP64 arithmetic, may see parity or a slight edge on Intel. The extended instructions test, where AMD leads by just 2.1%, suggests that SIMD-heavy code like AVX-512 workloads narrows the gap, even if AMD still holds the advantage. Intel's larger per-core L2 cache (2 MB) may benefit latency-sensitive applications with poor locality, though the benchmark data does not isolate that effect.

For users prioritizing raw expansion capability, the AMD platform's 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 88 lanes allows more direct attachment of high-speed devices. The higher TDP of 280 W for AMD versus 270 W for Intel is offset by the substantial performance gains. The Intel Xeon 6737P, while trailing in most tests, still achieves the 98th percentile and could be chosen for platforms where Intel's ecosystem, existing motherboard investments, or specific software optimizations are a requirement. However, the recorded benchmark data offers no category where the Intel part wins decisively; its single victory is within the margin of error, while AMD's wins are often large and consistent.