CPU Comparison

Both the Intel Xeon 6507P and the Intel Xeon 6369P are 8-core, 16-thread server processors released on the same date, yet the benchmark data shows two very different design philosophies. The 6507P takes a decisive lead in the majority of workloads, winning 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the 6369P counters with a smaller number of significant wins in specific areas. The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the 6507P scoring 40426 against the 6369P's 40327, a difference of just 0.2%, placing both in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. This makes the choice between them a matter of workload matching rather than outright superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6507P establishes its dominance in rendering and general multi-threaded performance. In the Cinebench suite, it wins every single test, R15, R20, and R23, in both multi-core and single-core variants, each by a consistent 3% margin. This pattern extends to the Passmark multithread test, where it scores 31233 versus 30315, another 3% win. The 6507P is also the clear choice for physics simulations, scoring 2935 against the 6369P's 2008, a substantial 46.2% advantage. Its leadership is most pronounced in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where it achieves a score of 224 compared to 141, a staggering 58.9% difference, and in extended instructions, with a 20.1% lead (27385 vs 22807). Data compression also favors the 6507P, with a 2.8% edge (356190 vs 346632).

Conversely, the Intel Xeon 6369P wins in a distinct set of workloads that favor its higher boost clock. The most striking victory is in the Passmark single-thread test, where it scores 4305 against the 6507P's 3643, a 15.4% advantage. This strength in single-threaded performance carries over to integer math, where it leads by 12% (101013 vs 88877), and floating-point math, where it is 6.1% ahead (74151 vs 69604). The 6369P also takes the data encryption test, albeit by a narrow 0.9% margin (17922 vs 17753). These results indicate that the 6369P is optimized for tasks that rely on high-frequency, single-core execution, while the 6507P excels in multi-threaded and complex instruction workloads.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures explain the performance split. The 6507P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture using a 5 nm process node, while the 6369P uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. This process advantage allows the 6507P to pack a larger 48 MB shared L3 cache, double the 24 MB of the 6369P. The per-core L1 cache is also larger on the 6507P at 112 KB per core, compared to 80 KB per core on the 6369P. Both share the same 2 MB per core L2 cache.

The memory subsystems are drastically different. The 6507P supports eight-channel DDR5 memory, providing a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, whereas the 6369P supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory with no listed bandwidth figure. This eight-channel configuration is a major factor in the 6507P's strong multi-threaded performance, as it can feed data to the cores much faster. The 6507P also offers significantly more PCIe lanes, with Gen 5 and 88 lanes, versus Gen 5 and 16 lanes on the 6369P. The 6507P uses the Intel Socket 4710, while the 6369P uses the Intel Socket 1700. Additionally, the 6507P has a higher TDP of 150 watts compared to the 6369P's 95 watts, and the 6369P has a larger die size of 257 mm², which is not listed for the 6507P.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test provides a clear picture of the multi-threaded capabilities. The 6507P scores 26548, while the 6369P scores 25774, a 3% difference that shows the Granite Rapids part is better at sustaining heavy, all-core loads. This is despite the 6369P having a higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, indicating the 6507P's architecture is more efficient. The single-core R23 test follows the same pattern, with the 6507P winning 3747 to 3638, again by 3%.

The most significant divergence appears in the Passmark tests. The find prime numbers test is a massive win for the 6507P, with a 58.9% advantage (224 vs 141). This suggests that the 6507P's architecture handles complex, branch-heavy algorithms far better. The physics test is another major victory, with the 6507P leading by 46.2% (2935 vs 2008). However, the 6369P fights back in the single-thread test, securing a 15.4% win (4305 vs 3643). This is the 6369P's largest margin of victory and highlights its ability to execute simple, sequential tasks at a much higher speed. The integer math test also goes to the 6369P with a 12% lead (101013 vs 88877), while the 6507P counters with a 20.1% win in extended instructions (27385 vs 22807) and a 6.6% win in random string sorting (39682 vs 37237).

FAQ

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6507P is the clear winner for multi-threaded rendering. It wins all Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by a consistent 3% margin, scoring 26548 in R23 versus 25774 for the 6369P.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 6369P has higher single-thread performance. It wins the Passmark single-thread test decisively with a score of 4305 compared to 3643 for the 6507P, a 15.4% difference.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: Based on the TDP figures, the Intel Xeon 6369P is more power-efficient, with a TDP of 95 watts compared to 150 watts for the 6507P.

Q: Which processor offers better memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon 6507P offers significantly better memory bandwidth. It supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the 6369P supports dual-channel memory with no listed bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon 6507P has more PCIe lanes, providing Gen 5 with 88 lanes. The Intel Xeon 6369P provides Gen 5 with only 16 lanes.

Q: Are these processors similar in overall performance?

A: Yes, the overall average benchmark scores are very close. The 6507P has an average score of 40426, while the 6369P has 40327, a negligible difference of 0.2%.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Xeon 6507P and the Intel Xeon 6369P are aimed at different server roles. The 6507P is the stronger choice for workloads that benefit from massive memory bandwidth and multi-threaded processing, such as virtualized environments, database serving, and complex scientific simulations. Its 3% lead in multi-core benchmarks and its overwhelming 58.9% advantage in prime number finding make it a superior compute engine for parallel tasks. Its double L3 cache (48 MB vs 24 MB) and eight-channel memory controller are the key structural advantages.

The Intel Xeon 6369P, on the other hand, is better suited for latency-sensitive, single-threaded applications. Its 15.4% lead in the Passmark single-thread test and 12% lead in integer math show it is capable of higher per-core throughput. This makes it a viable option for workloads that are not easily parallelized or that depend on high clock speeds. The 6369P also consumes less power, with a TDP of 95 watts versus 150 watts, which could be a decisive factor in dense, power-constrained server deployments.

In summary, the 6507P is the pick for heavy, multi-threaded, and memory-intensive server workloads. The 6369P is the pick for single-threaded performance and lower power consumption. The choice is not about which is faster overall, but which architecture aligns with the specific demands of the server task.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6507P | Intel Xeon 6369P |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 150 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | N/A | 257 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 48 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | N/A |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Launch MSRP | $765 | $606 |