AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX vs Intel Xeon 636 Comparison

The Intel Xeon 636 and AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX are both 5 nm processors that land in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, yet they serve completely different masters. The Xeon 636 is a 12-core, 24-thread Granite Rapids workstation part with a 170 W TDP, while the 8745HX is an 8-core, 16-thread Dragon Range mobile chip with a 55 W TDP. The average benchmark scores are close — 61360 for the Xeon versus 60104 for the 8745HX — but that masks a lopsided head-to-head where the Intel part wins all 11 shared tests. This is a classic case of a high-power desktop/server processor outperforming a mobile chip across the board, but the real question is whether the mobile chip's efficiency and integrated graphics make it the better fit for a portable system.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon 636 wins every single benchmark where both chips were tested. The head-to-head results show 11 wins for Intel and zero for AMD, with margins ranging from a razor-thin 1.5% in single-threaded work to a massive 116.8% in the PassMark physics test. The Xeon 636's advantage is not confined to one type of workload — it sweeps compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreaded tasks, physics, and random string sorting.

The biggest Intel victories come in compute-heavy tasks. The physics test shows a 116.8% lead (3645 versus 1681), and floating-point math sees a 74% advantage (107826 versus 61972). Extended instructions are 56.6% faster (43282 versus 27638), and prime number finding is 60.4% ahead (255 versus 159). These are the kinds of workloads that benefit from the Xeon's 12 cores, 24 threads, and larger 48 MB shared L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX does not win a single benchmark in the comparison set. Its closest result is in single-threaded performance, where it trails by just 1.5% (3879 versus 3937). The PassMark single-thread score of 3879 is competitive with the Xeon's 3937, which suggests the Zen 4 architecture's higher 5.10 GHz boost clock nearly offsets the Intel part's architectural advantages in lightly threaded work. However, the 8745HX's 8 cores and 16 threads simply cannot match the Xeon's core count in multithreaded scenarios — the multithread test shows a 40.9% deficit (31517 versus 44421).

For a mobile user, the 8745HX still has a clear role: it delivers respectable performance in a 55 W package with integrated Radeon 610M graphics. The benchmark data shows it is not far behind in single-threaded tasks, and its lower TDP makes it viable for laptops where the Xeon's 170 W envelope would be impractical. But in raw throughput, the Xeon 636 is the clear winner in every measurable category.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Xeon 636 if your priority is maximum compute throughput and you have the power budget and cooling to support a 170 W workstation processor. The data shows it is decisively ahead in every multithreaded test — 40.9% in multithread, 74% in floating-point math, 56.6% in extended instructions, and 116.8% in physics. It also offers quad-channel DDR5 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth versus the 8745HX's dual-channel 83.2 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. The Xeon's 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes dwarf the 8745HX's 28 lanes, making it the obvious choice for workstation builds with multiple GPUs or NVMe storage arrays. Its launch MSRP is $639.

Choose the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX if you need a capable processor for a laptop or compact system where the 55 W TDP and integrated graphics are essential. The benchmark results show it is only 1.5% behind the Xeon in single-threaded performance, and its 5.10 GHz boost clock keeps it competitive in lightly threaded applications. The 8745HX also carries a 92nd percentile ranking, matching the Xeon's standing, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (0% delta) and the Intel Core i9-14900F (0.2% delta), indicating it trades blows with flagship desktop parts in average score. However, the data does not support choosing the 8745HX for raw performance — it loses every head-to-head test by double digits except single-thread.

The practical split is simple: the Xeon 636 is for a fixed workstation that crunches numbers all day, while the 8745HX is for a mobile machine that needs solid performance without a dedicated GPU. Neither chip is a bad buy in its intended market segment, but the benchmark data gives the Xeon a clear performance victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the PassMark physics test, where the Xeon 636 scores 3645 against the 8745HX's 1681 — a 116.8% lead. This test is highly sensitive to core count and memory bandwidth, and the Xeon's 12 cores, 24 threads, and quad-channel memory subsystem deliver more than double the score. The floating-point math test tells a similar story: 107826 versus 61972 for a 74% advantage, reflecting the Xeon's superior FPU throughput per core combined with more cores.

Integer math shows a 37.8% win for Intel (138281 versus 100328), and the multithread test shows a 40.9% lead (44421 versus 31517). Data compression is 51.3% faster on the Xeon (550395 versus 363759), which is a strong indicator for database and file-server workloads. Extended instructions are 56.6% ahead (43282 versus 27638), benefiting the Xeon in encryption and AVX-512-style workloads. Prime number finding is 60.4% faster (255 versus 159), and random string sorting is 22.3% ahead (54420 versus 44494).

Data encryption is a 24.5% win for the Xeon (27193 versus 21840), a smaller margin than the other multithreaded tests but still decisive. The closest contest is single-threaded performance: the Xeon's 3937 barely edges out the 8745HX's 3879 for a 1.5% lead. This suggests that for everyday tasks that rely on one or two cores, the two processors are nearly interchangeable, despite the Xeon's lower 4.70 GHz boost clock versus the AMD's 5.10 GHz. The Xeon's per-core L1 cache of 112 KB and L2 of 2 MB likely compensate for the clock deficit.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce the pattern: the Xeon 636 averages 61360, placing it 0.6% behind the Intel Core i9-13900T and 0.8% behind the Core i9-13900K in its nearest rival list. The 8745HX averages 60104, which is essentially tied with the Ryzen 9 7945HX (0% delta) and 0.2% ahead of the Core i9-14900F. Both chips sit within a narrow performance band of their rivals, but the direct comparison between them is not close.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 636 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 3937 versus the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX's 3879, a margin of just 1.5%. The difference is negligible for most applications.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon 636 in multithreaded workloads?

A: The Xeon 636 scores 44421 in the PassMark multithread test, which is 40.9% higher than the 8745HX's 31517. In the physics test, the Xeon leads by 116.8% (3645 versus 1681).

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 8745HX win any benchmark against the Xeon 636?

A: No. The head-to-head results show 11 wins for the Intel Xeon 636 and 0 wins for the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX across all shared tests.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon 636 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX does not. The Xeon also uses quad-channel DDR5 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth versus the 8745HX's dual-channel 83.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon 636 has a TDP of 170 W, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX has a TDP of 55 W. This makes the 8745HX far more suitable for mobile or low-power systems.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon 636's average score of 61360 is 0.6% behind the Intel Core i9-13900T and 0.8% behind the Core i9-13900K. The 8745HX's average of 60104 is tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 7945HX (0% delta) and 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900F.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 636 uses the Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 598 mm². It is part of the Xeon 600 series and targets the server/workstation segment. The AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 71 mm² and 6,570 million transistors. It belongs to the 8000 series and targets mobile systems.

Core counts differ significantly: the Xeon has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 8745HX has 8 cores and 16 threads. Cache hierarchies also differ — the Xeon provides 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, plus a 48 MB shared L3 cache. The 8745HX offers 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a 32 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger per-core caches and triple the L3 capacity give it a structural advantage in data-heavy workloads.

The memory controllers are a major architectural split. The Xeon 636 supports quad-channel DDR5 with 204.8 GB/s peak bandwidth and ECC memory. The 8745HX uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the Xeon offers 80 Gen 5 lanes, while the 8745HX provides 28 Gen 5 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the 8745HX includes a Radeon 610M iGPU.

The Xeon's base clock is 3.50 GHz with a 4.70 GHz boost, whereas the 8745HX runs at 3.60 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The AMD part's higher clocks partially offset its smaller core count in single-threaded tasks, but the Xeon's 170 W TDP versus the 8745HX's 55 W TDP reflects the power envelope required to feed those extra cores and memory channels. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, but the Xeon's socket (Intel Socket 4710) and the 8745HX's socket (AMD Socket FL1) are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

The Intel Xeon 636 and AMD Ryzen 7 8745HX differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Xeon has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 8745HX has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are close — 3.50 GHz for Intel versus 3.60 GHz for AMD — but the boost clocks favor AMD at 5.10 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. TDP is a stark contrast: 170 W for the Xeon versus 55 W for the 8745HX.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon offers 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 48 MB of shared L3. The 8745HX has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's die size is 598 mm², while the 8745HX is 71 mm². Transistor count is only listed for the AMD part at 6,570 million.

Memory support differs in channel count and bandwidth: the Xeon uses quad-channel DDR5 with 204.8 GB/s, while the 8745HX uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the 8745HX. PCIe lanes favor the Xeon heavily at 80 Gen 5 lanes versus 28 Gen 5 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, whereas the 8745HX includes Radeon 610M.

The market segments are opposite: the Xeon is a server/workstation part with a launch MSRP of $639, while the 8745HX is a mobile processor with no launch MSRP listed. Both are currently active in production. The Xeon was released on 2026-02-01, and the 8745HX on 2025-04-22. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, and the 8745HX uses AMD Socket FL1. Both have unlocked multipliers, but the Xeon's part number is SA2DM while the 8745HX's is 100-000001851.