AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Xeon 6337P Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and Intel Xeon 6337P are both 6-core, 12-thread processors, but they target different market segments and exhibit distinct performance profiles. The Intel Xeon wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, yet the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS takes 4 wins with significant margins in specific workloads, making the choice highly dependent on the intended application.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6337P is the clear winner in compute-heavy and physics-based workloads. Its benchmark victories span all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single- and multi-core), giving it a consistent lead in rendering-style tasks. It also dominates PassMark tests for integer math, floating-point math, prime number finding, and the multithread test. The Xeon’s 13 wins include the two largest margins in the entire comparison: a 39.7% lead in PassMark physics and a 34.3% lead in find prime numbers. This pattern indicates a processor optimized for raw computational throughput, especially in tasks that stress arithmetic logic units and physics simulation.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins in four categories: PassMark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting. Its largest win is a 20.4% margin in extended instructions, followed by an 18.7% margin in data encryption. These are workloads that benefit from specific instruction set efficiency and memory-level parallelism. The Ryzen’s wins are narrower in data compression (3.8%) but still decisive. This suggests the AMD part excels in cryptography, compression algorithms, and string manipulation, tasks often found in database and server-side processing.

The performance split is not subtle. If the workload involves physics, prime number calculation, or general floating-point math, the Intel Xeon 6337P is the obvious choice. If the workload involves encryption, compression, or specialized instruction-heavy code, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS takes the lead. Both processors share an 80th percentile ranking among all CPUs, meaning they are comparable in overall standing, but the distribution of their strengths is highly uneven.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Xeon 6337P uses the Raptor Lake architecture (Raptor Lake-R codename), manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel, with a 163 mm² die size. The process node difference is notable: the AMD part’s 4 nm process is significantly more advanced than Intel’s 10 nm process, which typically translates to better power efficiency and higher transistor density.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6337P has larger per-core caches: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This gives the Intel part a total cache advantage, which likely contributes to its stronger performance in cache-sensitive workloads like physics calculations.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS supports only DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Xeon 6337P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, though its memory bandwidth is not specified in the data. Both support ECC memory, but the AMD part includes integrated Radeon 760M graphics, while the Intel Xeon has no integrated graphics (N/A). The AMD part uses an AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700.

The PCIe capabilities are another differentiator. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6337P offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This means the Intel part has a newer PCIe standard, albeit with fewer lanes. The AMD part’s integrated graphics is a significant advantage for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU, while the Intel part is clearly aimed at server/workstation environments where such graphics are unnecessary.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 6337P wins every Cinebench test by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1893 versus the AMD’s 1824, a 3.6% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar 3.7% gap (267 vs 257). This pattern repeats in R20 multicore (7888 vs 7603, -3.6%) and R20 single-core (1113 vs 1073, -3.6%). In Cinebench R23, the Xeon scores 18783 multicore and 2651 single-core, versus the AMD’s 18104 and 2555, again a 3.6% margin in both. The consistency suggests a fundamental clock-speed or IPC advantage for the Intel part in this rendering workload.

The PassMark results are more dramatic. The Intel Xeon 6337P wins PassMark physics by a massive 39.7% margin (1729 vs 1043). Its find prime numbers score of 108 is 34.3% higher than the AMD’s 71. Floating-point math also favors Intel (53150 vs 43019, a 19.1% lead), and integer math shows a smaller but still clear 3.4% advantage (72301 vs 69839). The Xeon also leads in multithread (22098 vs 21465, -2.9%) and single-thread (4104 vs 3561, -13.2%). The single-thread margin is notable because it reflects the Xeon’s higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus the AMD’s 4.90 GHz.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins its four tests with larger relative margins. Its data encryption score of 14962 is 18.7% higher than the Intel’s 12604. Extended instructions show an even bigger gap: 18507 versus 15366, a 20.4% lead. Random string sorting favors AMD by 15.7% (30235 vs 26135). The narrowest AMD win is data compression at 3.8% (246446 vs 237373). These wins indicate that the AMD architecture handles encryption and instruction-heavy code more efficiently, despite the Intel part’s higher clock speeds.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The base clocks are identical at 3.50 GHz, but the boost clocks differ: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 6337P boosts to 5.30 GHz. This 0.40 GHz boost advantage for Intel likely explains its single-thread and physics performance wins. The TDP is also very different: the AMD part draws 28 watts, while the Intel part draws 80 watts. That is a 52-watt difference, meaning the AMD processor is far more power-efficient, though the data does not specify actual power consumption under load.

The process node is a major difference: AMD uses 4 nm TSMC, while Intel uses 10 nm Intel. The AMD processor has a larger die (178 mm² vs 163 mm²) but also a much higher transistor count (25,000 million vs none specified for Intel). Cache configurations differ as described: Intel has larger L1, L2, and L3 caches. Memory support: AMD is limited to DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD part has integrated Radeon 760M graphics, while the Intel part has none. PCIe: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The market segments differ: AMD is mobile, Intel is server/workstation. Release dates also differ: the AMD part was released on April 15, 2024, while the Intel part was released on February 23, 2025. The Intel Xeon 6337P has a launch MSRP of $375; the AMD part has no stated launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 6337P has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Xeon 6337P has a TDP of 80 watts, indicating the AMD part is designed for lower power consumption.

Q: Does the AMD processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon 6337P does not have integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark physics, where the Intel Xeon 6337P leads by 39.7%, scoring 1729 versus the AMD’s 1043.

Q: Which processor supports more memory types?

A: The Intel Xeon 6337P supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS supports only DDR5.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Xeon 6337P is built on a 10 nm process by Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform requirements. For server or workstation deployments where raw compute performance is paramount—especially physics simulation, prime number calculation, or floating-point math—the Intel Xeon 6337P is the superior choice. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, holds a 13.2% single-thread lead, and delivers its largest margins in physics (39.7%) and prime numbers (34.3%). Its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz and larger cache (18 MB L3) support these wins. The 80-watt TDP and lack of integrated graphics are acceptable trade-offs in a server context, and its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 offers memory flexibility.

For mobile or compact systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is the better option. Its 28-watt TDP is less than half the Intel part’s, and the integrated Radeon 760M eliminates the need for a discrete GPU. It also wins in encryption (18.7% ahead), extended instructions (20.4% ahead), and random string sorting (15.7% ahead), making it strong for security-focused or data-processing workloads. The AMD part’s 4 nm process and 25,000 million transistors suggest a more modern design, even though it trails in raw compute tests.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has an average of 28478, while the Intel Xeon 6337P has 28333, a difference of less than 0.5%. Both rank in the 80th percentile among all CPUs. This means neither processor is categorically faster; they are simply tuned for different strengths. Users who need maximum single-thread or physics performance should choose the Intel Xeon 6337P. Users who need power efficiency, integrated graphics, or superior encryption and compression performance should choose the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS. The choice is not about which is better overall, but which set of benchmark wins aligns with the specific workload.