Intel Xeon 6732P vs Intel Xeon 6745P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided contest. The Intel Xeon 6745P wins 15 of the 16 head-to-head comparisons, with the sole exception being a single PassMark physics test. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the Cinebench results: across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the 6745P leads by exactly 12.5% in both single-core and multi-core tests. That uniformity suggests a fundamental clock or architectural advantage that scales linearly across rendering workloads.

The single-thread PassMark results show the widest gap. The 6745P scores 3450 against the 6732P's 2506, a 37.7% advantage. This is a massive delta for two processors from the same Granite Rapids family, and it points to a significant difference in how each chip handles lightly threaded tasks. The Cinebench R15 single-core result tells a similar story at 12.5% (1018 vs 905), but the PassMark figure is nearly three times larger, indicating that PassMark's single-thread workload stresses something the 6745P handles disproportionately better.

Multi-threaded performance follows the same directional trend but with varying magnitudes. The PassMark multithread score shows a 12.5% lead (84210 vs 74849), matching the Cinebench deltas exactly. However, the PassMark integer math test shows only a 0.8% gap (336926 vs 334340), and floating-point math narrows to 2.2% (267438 vs 261703). These smaller deltas suggest that raw ALU/FPU throughput is nearly identical; the differences emerge in memory-bound or cache-sensitive workloads.

The 6732P's lone victory in PassMark physics is striking. It scores 8109 versus 6144 for the 6745P, a 24.2% margin in the opposite direction. This is the largest delta in either direction across the entire benchmark suite. Physics simulations often depend on memory latency and specific instruction patterns, and the 6732P's higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.10 GHz) may play a role here, even though its boost clock is lower (4.10 GHz vs 4.30 GHz).

Data compression and encryption show modest but consistent wins for the 6745P. Compression scores 1352801 versus 1339480 (1% delta), while encryption shows a 4.4% gap (66665 vs 63848). Random string sorting is effectively a tie at 133528 versus 133467 (0% delta), suggesting that pure memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s for both) dominates this workload. Extended instructions favor the 6745P by 1.5% (108326 vs 106697), and prime number finding shows an 8.4% gap (681 vs 628).

Where Each One Wins

The 6745P is the clear choice for rendering and content creation. Its 12.5% advantage across all three Cinebench versions—both multi-core and single-core—makes it the stronger processor for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any task that scales across cores with heavy floating-point math. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 71578 versus 63621 is a substantial margin for a 32-core processor.

Single-threaded workloads are decisively in the 6745P's favor. The 37.7% PassMark single-thread lead is the headline statistic here. Legacy applications, database queries with serial sections, and any workload that cannot parallelize will run noticeably faster on the 6745P. Its 4.30 GHz boost clock versus 4.10 GHz helps explain this, but the magnitude of the delta suggests more than just a 5% clock difference.

The 6745P also wins in security and data processing. Data encryption performance is 4.4% higher, which matters for TLS termination, disk encryption, and VPN gateways. Extended instructions (SIMD/AVX workloads) run 1.5% faster, and integer math is 0.8% ahead. Prime number finding, which stresses integer division and branch prediction, shows an 8.4% advantage.

The 6732P's only winning scenario is PassMark physics. The 24.2% margin here is anomalous. Physics workloads often involve rigid body dynamics, collision detection, and constraint solving—tasks that are memory-latency sensitive and sometimes benefit from higher sustained base clocks. The 6732P's 3.80 GHz base clock (versus 3.10 GHz for the 6745P) means it maintains higher performance under sustained full-core loads without relying on boost behavior. If a deployment runs long-duration physics simulations, the 6732P appears to have a measurable edge.

For memory-bandwidth-bound tasks like random string sorting, the two are effectively identical (0% delta). Both support eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. This suggests that memory controllers and bus configurations are equivalent; the performance differences observed elsewhere stem from cache hierarchy and clock behavior rather than raw memory throughput.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon 6745P win so many benchmarks despite having a lower base clock than the 6732P?

A: The 6745P has a 4.30 GHz boost clock versus 4.10 GHz for the 6732P, and it carries a significantly larger L3 cache (336 MB vs 144 MB). The higher boost ceiling and larger shared cache likely offset the lower 3.10 GHz base clock in most workloads, explaining the consistent 12.5% leads in Cinebench and the 37.7% single-thread PassMark advantage.

Q: Is the 6732P ever the better choice based on benchmark data?

A: Yes, for PassMark physics simulations. The 6732P scores 8109 versus 6144 for the 6745P, a 24.2% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the 6732P wins, but the margin is substantial enough to matter for physics-heavy applications.

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

A: The 6745P sits 2.3% below the Intel Xeon 676X, 3.4% below the AMD EPYC 9355P, 4.4% below the AMD EPYC 7663, and 4.7% below the AMD EPYC 9375F in average benchmark score. The 6732P is 0.2% above the Intel Xeon 674X, 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D, 0.6% below the Intel Xeon w9-3575X, and 1% below the AMD EPYC 7643P.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two processors?

A: The 6745P averages 154858 across all benchmarks, while the 6732P averages 143444. That is a difference of 11414 points, or approximately 7.4% higher for the 6745P. Both rank in the 98th percentile of all CPUs.

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 bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory, making them suitable for error-sensitive server workloads.

Q: Are there differences in PCIe lane counts?

A: Yes. The 6745P provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only), while the 6732P provides Gen 5 with 136 lanes (CPU only). This is a significant difference for systems requiring many high-speed I/O devices.

Specification Differences

The two processors share their core count (32 cores, 64 threads), socket (Intel Socket 4710), architecture (Granite Rapids), manufacturing process (5 nm, Intel), and memory support (DDR5, eight-channel, 409.6 GB/s, ECC). Integrated graphics is N/A for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6745P | Intel Xeon 6732P |

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

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 300 W | 350 W |

| L3 Cache | 336 MB (shared) | 144 MB (shared) |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 Lanes | Gen 5, 136 Lanes |

| Die Size | 2x 598 mm² | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2025-02-23 | 2025-05-21 |

| Launch MSRP | $5250 | $5295 |

| Part Number | SRWPAQ7L9 | SRVP2 |

The base clock difference is notable: the 6732P runs 0.70 GHz higher at base, but the 6745P boosts 0.20 GHz higher. TDP tells a reverse story—the 6732P consumes 50 W more (350 W vs 300 W) despite having the same core count. The L3 cache difference is massive (336 MB vs 144 MB), and the PCIe lane difference favors the 6732P by 48 lanes.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Granite Rapids architecture (Xeon 6, Granite Rapids-SP) using Intel's 5 nm process. The L1 cache is identical at 112 KB per core, and L2 is 2 MB per core for both. The L3 cache differs substantially: the 6745P has 336 MB shared, while the 6732P has 144 MB shared. This 192 MB gap is the largest architectural differentiator.

The die size is specified for the 6745P as 2x 598 mm² (dual-die configuration), while the 6732P does not list a die size. This suggests the 6745P may use a different physical configuration, potentially with additional memory-side cache or a different mesh topology to accommodate the larger L3.

The 6732P's higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.10 GHz) but lower boost clock (4.10 GHz vs 4.30 GHz) suggests a different binning strategy. The 6732P appears optimized for sustained all-core throughput at a fixed clock, while the 6745P favors burst performance. The 6732P's higher TDP (350 W vs 300 W) aligns with its higher base clock, indicating it draws more power to maintain that frequency across all cores.

PCIe lane counts differ significantly: 88 for the 6745P versus 136 for the 6732P. This affects how many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network cards can be attached directly to the CPU without a switch. The 6732P's additional 48 lanes make it more suitable for dense I/O configurations.

The release dates differ by roughly three months, with the 6745P launching on 2025-02-23 and the 6732P on 2025-05-21. The part numbers differ (SRWPAQ7L9 vs SRVP2), and both are currently marked as Active production status.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the Intel Xeon 6745P for most workloads. It wins 15 of 16 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test by exactly 12.5%, and it holds a 37.7% lead in PassMark single-thread performance. Its average benchmark score of 154858 versus 143444 places it ahead by roughly 7.4%, and both processors rank at the 98th percentile of all CPUs. The 6745P's larger L3 cache (336 MB vs 144 MB) and higher boost clock (4.30 GHz vs 4.10 GHz) appear to drive these gains, despite its lower base clock (3.10 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and higher launch MSRP ($5250 vs $5295).

The 6732P is the pick only for specific physics-heavy workloads. Its 24.2% PassMark physics advantage is real and substantial, likely stemming from its 3.80 GHz base clock that sustains performance under full-core loads. It also offers more PCIe lanes (136 vs 88), which matters for systems with many expansion cards. However, its 350 W TDP versus 300 W for the 6745P means it consumes more power to achieve this.

For rendering, single-threaded applications, encryption, and general server workloads, the 6745P is the superior choice. The consistency of its wins—12.5% across all Cinebench versions, 4.4% in encryption, 8.4% in prime numbers—indicates broad superiority rather than workload-specific tuning. The 6732P should be selected only when physics simulation performance is the primary requirement, or when the additional PCIe lanes are essential.

The 50 W TDP difference also matters for dense server deployments. The 6745P delivers more performance while consuming less power (300 W vs 350 W), which translates to lower cooling requirements and potentially higher rack density. Given that the 6745P is also $45 cheaper at launch MSRP, the value proposition is one-sided, though pricing should not be the deciding factor for mission-critical hardware decisions.