Intel Xeon 6730P vs Intel Xeon 6737P Comparison

Both processors share the same core and thread counts, but the benchmark data consistently favors the higher-clocked 6737P. The 6737P wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, with margins ranging from a narrow 1.6% in prime number search to a commanding 17.2% in data encryption. This is not a close contest; it is a clear hierarchy where the 6737P sits above the 6730P in every measured workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the 6737P come in computational throughput tests. In PassMark's floating point math, the 6737P scores 258,811 against the 6730P's 226,838, a 14.1% advantage. Integer math shows a similar gap, with 330,756 versus 290,740, a 13.8% lead. These are the kinds of workloads that scale directly with clock speed and core efficiency, and the 6737P's higher base and boost clocks translate into substantial real-world gains. Random string sorting also favors the 6737P by 13.7%, scoring 129,510 against 113,919, indicating faster memory subsystem interactions and better latency handling.

The encryption test produces the largest single delta of the entire comparison. The 6737P achieves 65,615 in PassMark's data encryption benchmark, while the 6730P manages only 55,964, a 17.2% improvement. This is a notable outlier, suggesting that the 6737P's higher clock speeds have an outsized effect on the AES and cryptographic instruction paths. Extended instructions, which cover AVX-512 and similar vector workloads, also show a healthy 9.6% lead for the 6737P, with scores of 105,453 versus 96,204.

Cinebench results are remarkably consistent across all versions. In both R15 and R20, the multi-core and single-core tests show a uniform 7.4% to 7.5% delta in favor of the 6737P. R15 multi-core scores 6,822 against 6,349, while R20 multi-core scores 28,428 against 26,458. Single-core R15 shows 963 versus 896, and R20 single-core shows 4,013 versus 3,735. The R23 multi-core test follows the same pattern, with 67,688 against 62,996, a 7.4% gap. This consistency across different Cinebench versions indicates that the clock speed difference between the two chips yields a predictable and repeatable performance uplift in rendering and ray tracing workloads.

The remaining PassMark tests round out a clean sweep. Data compression shows a modest 1.7% lead for the 6737P, scoring 1,157,255 against 1,138,470. Prime number finding is nearly tied, with 697 versus 686, a 1.6% edge. Physics simulation favors the 6737P by 8.8%, scoring 9,362 against 8,606. The multithreaded PassMark score gives the 6737P a 7.4% advantage, 79,634 versus 74,113. Single-thread performance is the closest category, with the 6737P scoring 3,048 against 2,995, a 1.8% margin. The 6737P wins all 16 recorded head-to-head benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

There is no benchmark category where the 6730P comes out ahead. The data shows a single-direction performance curve. The 6737P wins every workload, but the magnitude of its advantage varies meaningfully. For workloads that are heavily dependent on raw integer and floating-point arithmetic, such as scientific simulation, financial modeling, and code compilation, the 6737P offers a substantial 13% to 14% uplift. For encryption-heavy tasks like secure data transmission, database encryption, or VPN gateways, the 6737P's 17.2% lead makes it the clear choice.

The 6730P's role is defined by its lower power envelope and lower launch MSRP, not by performance wins. In scenarios where the workload is predominantly single-threaded, the gap narrows to under 2%, making the 6730P a reasonable alternative for lightly threaded applications. The prime number test and single-thread PassMark scores show only 1.6% and 1.8% differences respectively, so for legacy software that uses a single core, the two processors are nearly interchangeable. However, for any multi-threaded or vectorized workload, the 6737P's higher clocks provide a consistent and often significant advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Granite Rapids architecture, using Intel's 5 nm process node. They share the same Intel Socket 4710, the same eight-channel DDR5 memory bus, and the same 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory and offer PCIe Gen 5 with 88 lanes. The core configuration is identical, with 32 cores and 64 threads on each chip. The L1 and L2 caches are the same, with 112 KB and 2 MB per core respectively.

The critical difference lies in the L3 cache and the physical die configuration. The 6737P features a single die with a die size of 598 mm² and 144 MB of shared L3 cache. The 6730P uses a dual-die design, with a combined die size of 2x 598 mm² and a much larger 288 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the 6730P has twice the L3 capacity, which typically benefits workloads with large working sets that can reside in cache. Despite this cache advantage, the 6730P still loses every benchmark, indicating that clock speed has a stronger influence on these specific tests than cache size.

The clock speeds are the primary differentiating factor. The 6737P has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the 6730P has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. This 0.4 GHz base clock difference and 0.2 GHz boost clock difference account for the consistent performance gap. The 6737P also has a higher TDP of 270 watts versus 250 watts for the 6730P, reflecting the additional power required to sustain those higher clocks. Both chips are unlocked for multiplier adjustment, though that is a minor factor for server workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon 6730P has 288 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6737P has 144 MB. The 6730P uses a dual-die design with 2x 598 mm² die size, while the 6737P uses a single die of 598 mm².

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 with an eight-channel memory bus and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 6737P has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to 3.80 GHz on the 6730P. The 6737P also has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the 6730P wins?

A: According to the recorded head-to-head data, no. The 6737P wins all 16 benchmark comparisons, with deltas ranging from 1.6% to 17.2%.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data encryption, where the 6737P scores 65,615 against 55,964, a 17.2% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The 6737P has a TDP of 270 watts, while the 6730P is rated at 250 watts.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Base Clock: 2.90 GHz on the 6737P versus 2.50 GHz on the 6730P
• Boost Clock: 4.00 GHz on the 6737P versus 3.80 GHz on the 6730P
• TDP: 270 watts on the 6737P versus 250 watts on the 6730P
• Die Size: 598 mm² on the 6737P versus 2x 598 mm² on the 6730P
• L3 Cache: 144 MB shared on the 6737P versus 288 MB shared on the 6730P
• Launch MSRP: $4995 for the 6737P versus $3726 for the 6730P
• Part Number: SRVNZ for the 6737P versus SRV5R for the 6730P

All other specifications, including cores, threads, socket, architecture, process node, memory support, PCIe lanes, and integrated graphics, are identical.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors is straightforward if the workload is known. The 6737P is the faster chip in every recorded benchmark, offering a 7.4% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests and a 17.2% lead in encryption. For any compute-intensive server workload, especially those involving floating-point math, integer math, or encryption, the 6737P delivers measurably better performance. The 6737P's 98th percentile ranking among all CPUs, compared to the 6730P's 97th, confirms its position at the top of the performance stack.

The 6730P is the appropriate choice for deployments where the lower launch MSRP and the 250 watt TDP are the primary constraints. Its 288 MB of L3 cache is a notable advantage for certain cache-sensitive workloads, but the recorded data shows that this cache advantage does not translate into a win in any of the tested benchmarks. For single-threaded tasks, the performance gap narrows to under 2%, making the 6730P a nearly equivalent option at a lower cost. The 6737P is the pick for maximum throughput; the 6730P is the pick for power-conscious or cost-conscious deployments that do not require peak multi-threaded performance.