AMD EPYC 9375F vs Intel Xeon 6737P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually lopsided head-to-head comparison. The AMD EPYC 9375F takes 15 of the 16 measured tests, while the Intel Xeon 6737P secures a single victory. That lone win, however, is worth examining closely because it reveals a specific strength in the Intel part.

The AMD EPYC 9375F dominates every Cinebench test by a remarkably consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 8205 against 6822, a 20.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 1158 versus 963, also 20.2% ahead. This pattern repeats in R20 and R23, with the AMD part holding a 20.3% lead in every multi-core and single-core iteration. The consistency of that delta across all five Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental performance-per-clock advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark tests paint a similar picture but with more variance. The largest gap appears in find prime numbers, where the AMD EPYC 9375F scores 1397 against just 697, a staggering 100.4% advantage. That is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison, and it indicates a massive difference in integer-heavy computational loops. Data compression also favors AMD heavily: 1496149 versus 1157255, a 29.3% gap. Random string sorting shows a 24.4% lead for AMD, and single-thread performance sits 23.4% ahead.

The Intel Xeon 6737P wins only the PassMark physics test, scoring 9362 against 9019, a 3.7% margin. This is interesting because physics simulation workloads often stress memory latency and branch prediction patterns that differ from pure throughput tests. The Intel part does not merely tie here, it wins outright, which suggests its architecture handles certain sequential dependent workloads more efficiently.

Floating point math is the closest contest overall. The AMD EPYC 9375F scores 260392 versus 258811, a razor-thin 0.6% margin. For workloads dominated by floating-point operations, the two processors are effectively interchangeable. Data encryption shows a moderate AMD lead at 12.2%, while extended instructions sit at 21.7% in favor of AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9375F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename. It uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon 6737P is Granite Rapids, part of the Xeon 6 generation, fabricated on Intel's 5 nm process. The process node advantage alone does not explain the performance gap, but it contributes to the AMD part's ability to reach higher clock speeds at a similar power envelope.

Both processors have 32 cores and 64 threads, so the thread count is identical. The differences lie in how those cores are built and connected. The AMD EPYC 9375F has a base clock of 3.85 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel Xeon 6737P runs at 2.90 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. That is a substantial clock advantage for AMD, roughly 1 GHz at boost, which directly translates into the consistent 20% leads seen across Cinebench.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD EPYC 9375F features 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6737P has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 144 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel gives each core more private cache, while AMD provides nearly twice the shared L3 capacity. The larger shared pool likely helps the AMD part in the data compression and random string sorting tests, where working sets may exceed per-core private caches.

Memory architecture also differs. The AMD EPYC 9375F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Intel Xeon 6737P uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s. That is a 40% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which explains the strong showing in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression. The AMD part also offers 128 Gen 5 PCIe lanes compared to 88 for Intel, giving it more headroom for storage and accelerator expansion.

Physical design separates the two as well. The AMD EPYC 9375F uses an 8-chiplet design with 8x 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 66,520 million transistors. The Intel Xeon 6737P is a monolithic 598 mm² die. The chiplet approach allows AMD to spread heat across multiple dies and potentially improve yields, while Intel's monolithic design concentrates everything into one large piece of silicon.

The AMD part launches at an MSRP of $5306, while the Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $4995. Both are active production parts, both support ECC memory, and neither has integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 9375F launched on 2024-10-09, while the Intel Xeon 6737P followed on 2025-02-23.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 15 of 16 benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 162497 compared to 140694 for the Intel Xeon 6737P. That is a 15.5% overall advantage for AMD, and when workloads scale across all cores, the AMD part consistently delivers roughly 20% more performance.

For single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, the choice is straightforward. The AMD EPYC 9375F leads by 20.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core and 23.4% in PassMark single-thread. The higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.00 GHz makes the difference. Any application that cannot fully utilize 64 threads will favor AMD.

For heavily threaded rendering and compute workloads, the AMD EPYC 9375F maintains its lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 81402 versus 67688, and PassMark multi-thread shows 95768 versus 79634, both 20.3% ahead. The combination of higher clocks, larger L3 cache, and greater memory bandwidth creates a comprehensive advantage.

The Intel Xeon 6737P has one clearly defined niche: physics simulation. Its 3.7% win in PassMark physics suggests that workloads with dependent instruction chains and irregular memory access patterns may run slightly better on Granite Rapids. This is a narrow edge, but for specific scientific computing tasks, it could matter.

The database also places both chips at the 98th percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a weak performer. The AMD EPYC 9375F's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7663 and AMD EPYC 9355P, while the Intel Xeon 6737P sits near the Intel Xeon 674X and Intel Xeon 6732P. The Intel part's closest competitor in the database is actually an AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D, which slightly edges it out.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F leads in every single-core test. It scores 1158 versus 963 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 4826 versus 4013 in R20, and 3762 versus 3048 in PassMark single-thread, a 23.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6737P win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 9362 against 9019 for the AMD EPYC 9375F, a 3.7% margin.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both processors have exactly 32 cores and 64 threads. The performance differences come from clock speeds, cache sizes, and memory bandwidth rather than core counts.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon 6737P supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6737P has 144 MB. The AMD part also has larger L3 per core despite having smaller L1 and L2 per core.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active production status. The AMD EPYC 9375F was released on 2024-10-09, and the Intel Xeon 6737P was released on 2025-02-23.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is find prime numbers, where the AMD EPYC 9375F scores 1397 versus 697, a 100.4% advantage. This test is heavily dependent on integer arithmetic and branch prediction efficiency, and the Zen 5 architecture demonstrates a massive edge. Doubling the score of an established server processor is unusual and points to a substantial microarchitectural improvement in AMD's core design.

Data compression shows a 29.3% lead for AMD, with 1496149 against 1157255. This workload benefits from the larger 256 MB L3 cache and the higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. Compression algorithms often stream data through caches, and the AMD part's combination of capacity and bandwidth pays off.

Random string sorting goes to AMD by 24.4%, scoring 161091 versus 129510. String sorting is memory-latency sensitive and also benefits from larger caches. The Intel part's 144 MB L3 is substantial, but apparently insufficient to close the gap.

Single-thread performance across PassMark shows AMD ahead by 23.4%, with 3762 versus 3048. This aligns with the clock speed difference: 4.80 GHz boost versus 4.00 GHz. The IPC improvements in Zen 5 compound the clock advantage.

Cinebench results are remarkably uniform. R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core all show exactly 20.3% leads for AMD. The scores are 8205 versus 6822, 34188 versus 28428, and 81402 versus 67688 respectively. Single-core variants show 20.2% or 20.3% leads. This uniformity suggests that the performance gap scales consistently across different rendering workloads.

Integer math favors AMD by 17.3%, scoring 387901 versus 330756. Floating point math is the closest test at 0.6%, with AMD scoring 260392 versus 258811. Extended instructions show a 21.7% AMD lead, and data encryption shows a 12.2% lead.

The only Intel win, PassMark physics, deserves attention. The 9362 score against 9019 represents a 3.7% margin. Physics simulations often involve rigid body dynamics and collision detection, which can be latency-bound rather than throughput-bound. The Intel architecture's larger per-core L2 cache of 2 MB may help here, even though its shared L3 is smaller.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. Core count and thread count are identical at 32 cores and 64 threads, so all performance differences stem from other factors.

Clock speeds show a clear AMD advantage: 3.85 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost versus 2.90 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost for Intel. The TDP reflects this, with AMD at 320 watts and Intel at 270 watts. AMD uses more power but delivers proportionally more performance.

The process nodes differ by generation. AMD uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while Intel uses a 5 nm process from its own fabs. The AMD EPYC 9375F is built on an 8-chiplet design with 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The Intel Xeon 6737P is a single 598 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ in both capacity and distribution. AMD provides 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 256 MB shared L3. Intel provides 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 144 MB shared L3. AMD has more total cache, but Intel gives each core more private cache.

Memory support differs in channel count and bandwidth. AMD uses twelve-channel DDR5 at 576.0 GB/s; Intel uses eight-channel DDR5 at 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lane counts also differ: AMD offers 128 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while Intel offers 88 Gen 5 lanes. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel Socket 4710.

Both processors lack integrated graphics, both have locked multipliers, and both target the server and workstation market segment. The AMD EPYC 9375F carries part number 100-000001197, while the Intel Xeon 6737P carries part number SRVNZ. The AMD part launched with an MSRP of $5306, and the Intel part launched with an MSRP of $4995.