Intel Xeon 634 vs Intel Xeon Phi 7290 Comparison

Intel Xeon Phi 7290 and Intel Xeon 634 are two very different server processors that land in the same overall performance percentile. Both sit at the 91st percentile against all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 53,469 for the Phi 7290 and 52,974 for the Xeon 634. The data shows a stark generational and architectural split, with the older Knights Landing part winning on a handful of specialized workloads while the newer Granite Rapids part dominates almost everything else, especially anything that relies on single-thread speed.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon 634 is the clear all-around winner for general server and workstation use. It wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and its victories are decisive. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 31,950 versus 15,163, a 52.5% advantage. Its single-thread performance is in a different league entirely: 3,567 in Passmark single-thread versus 485, an 86.4% gap. If you run typical enterprise workloads, databases, or content creation tools that scale across a few fast cores, the Xeon 634 is the only sensible choice.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 is a specialist. It wins 5 benchmarks, and those wins are concentrated in areas where its massive 72-core/288-thread configuration can flex. It beats the Xeon 634 by 18.1% in data compression, by 45.9% in random string sorting, and by 8.3% in extended instructions. It also edges out a win in integer math (7.9%) and physics (0.3%). If your workload is specifically about moving or sorting large volumes of data in memory, or if you need extreme thread-level parallelism for integer-heavy tasks, the Phi 7290 can still justify its existence. For everything else, the Xeon 634 is the pick.

Architecture Differences

These chips represent opposite ends of Intel's design philosophy. The Xeon Phi 7290 is built on the Knights Landing architecture, using a 14 nm process with 8,000 million transistors. It packs 72 cores and 288 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 1.70 GHz. Its cache is per-core: 32 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with no shared L3. It uses DDR4 memory and supports ECC. Its thermal design power is 245 W, and it fits the Intel Socket 3647.

The Xeon 634 is a Granite Rapids part, built on a 5 nm process with a die size of 598 mm². It has 12 cores and 24 threads, running at a 2.70 GHz base clock and boosting to 4.60 GHz. Its cache layout is different: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a 48 MB shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory with a quad-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and it provides PCIe Gen 5 with 80 lanes from the CPU. It consumes 150 W TDP and uses the Intel Socket 4710. The Xeon 634 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Phi 7290 does not. The Xeon 634 is marked as Active production status, with a launch MSRP of $499.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are a total rout. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Xeon 634 beats the Phi 7290 by approximately 52.5% in multi-core tests and 52.6% in single-core tests. In R23 multi-core, the Xeon 634 scores 31,950 against 15,163; in single-core, 4,510 against 2,140. This pattern holds across the board, with the Xeon 634's higher clock speed and modern architecture delivering roughly double the performance in every render workload.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Xeon 634 wins data encryption (23,451 vs 12,505, a 46.7% margin), find prime numbers (196 vs 114, a 41.8% margin), floating point math (93,564 vs 47,417, a 49.3% margin), and multi-thread (37,589 vs 17,839, a 52.5% margin). Its single-thread score of 3,567 versus 485 is the largest gap in the entire comparison at 86.4%.

The Phi 7290's wins are notable for their specificity. Data compression shows the Phi 7290 at 564,535 versus 477,924, an 18.1% lead. Random string sorting is its best result: 68,593 versus 47,016, a 45.9% advantage. Extended instructions go to the Phi 7290 at 41,517 versus 38,320, an 8.3% lead. Integer math is close but favors the Phi 7290: 126,922 versus 117,664, a 7.9% margin. The physics test is nearly a tie, with the Phi 7290 winning 2,257 to 2,250, a 0.3% edge.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads. The Intel Xeon 634 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Is the Xeon 634 faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes, overwhelmingly. The Xeon 634 scores 3,567 in Passmark single-thread, compared to 485 for the Phi 7290, a delta of 86.4%. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 1.70 GHz explains much of this gap.

Q: Where does the Phi 7290 beat the Xeon 634?

A: The Phi 7290 wins in data compression (564,535 vs 477,924), random string sorting (68,593 vs 47,016), extended instructions (41,517 vs 38,320), integer math (126,922 vs 117,664), and physics (2,257 vs 2,250).

Q: What is the memory difference between the two?

A: The Phi 7290 supports DDR4 memory, while the Xeon 634 supports DDR5 with a quad-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance tier?

A: Yes. Both are at the 91st percentile against all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are 53,469 for the Phi 7290 and 52,974 for the Xeon 634, a difference of less than 1%.

Q: Does the Xeon 634 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both CPUs support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon 634 wins in every scenario that benefits from high clock speeds and modern core design. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock makes it the superior choice for single-threaded applications, database transactions, web serving, and any workload where latency per request matters more than aggregate throughput. The Cinebench results show it is also faster in multi-threaded rendering, scoring roughly double the Phi 7290 in all three Cinebench versions. Encryption, prime number finding, and floating-point math all go to the Xeon 634, making it the better fit for scientific computing with double-precision math, secure communications, and general-purpose server consolidation. With 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and DDR5 quad-channel memory, it is also the more modern platform for storage and networking expansion.

The Phi 7290 wins in narrow but real niches. Its 288 threads give it an edge in data compression and random string sorting, tasks that benefit from massive parallelism even with slow cores. The 45.9% lead in random string sorting is particularly striking and suggests workloads that shuffle large datasets in memory could see meaningful gains. Integer math also favors the Phi 7290, making it a candidate for specific integer-heavy batch processing. The 0.3% physics win is negligible but technically a win. If your workload is dominated by these specific Passmark categories, the Phi 7290's older architecture still has a purpose. Otherwise, the Xeon 634 is the better investment for virtually all other server tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Phi 7290 | Intel Xeon 634 |

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

| Cores | 72 | 12 |

| Threads | 288 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 1.70 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 245 W | 150 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Knights Landing | Granite Rapids |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | N/A |

| Die Size | N/A | 598 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 32 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | N/A | 48 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | N/A | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | N/A | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | N/A | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Production Status | N/A | Active |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SR2WY | SA2DL |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | $499 |