Intel Xeon 6732P vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall win for the Intel Xeon 676X in this matchup. Across the 16 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the 676X takes 15 wins, while the 6732P manages only a single narrow victory. The average benchmark score for the 676X sits at 158540, compared to 143444 for the 6732P, a difference that places the 676X in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, same as its rival.

The most striking margin appears in single-threaded tests. In PassMark single_thread and singlethread (both recorded at 4015 for the 676X versus 2506 for the 6732P), the 676X leads by 60.2%. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison. Cinebench R15 singlecore tells a similar story at 1101 versus 905, a 21.7% edge. The 676X's 4.90 GHz boost clock against the 6732P's 4.10 GHz explains much of this gap, as the base clocks are reversed (2.80 GHz for the 676X, 3.80 GHz for the 6732P).

Multi-threaded performance also favors the 676X, though by a smaller relative margin. Cinebench R23 multicore scores 77447 for the 676X versus 63621 for the 6732P, again a 21.7% lead. PassMark multithread shows 91115 versus 74849, the same 21.7% delta. Since both CPUs have 32 cores and 64 threads, the difference comes down to clock behavior and how the two chips sustain load across all cores.

The Cinebench tests are remarkably consistent: R15 multicore, R15 singlecore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, and R23 multicore all show exactly 21.7% in favor of the 676X. This uniformity suggests the 676X's higher boost ceiling translates directly into Cinebench's workload patterns. The 6732P cannot close that gap despite its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.80 GHz.

PassMark integer math favors the 676X by 6.1%, with scores of 354777 versus 334340. Floating point math shows an 8.4% edge for the 676X at 283570 versus 261703. Prime number finding is a 17.5% win for the 676X at 738 versus 628. Data encryption goes to the 676X by 5.9% (67638 versus 63848), and data compression by a smaller 1.2% (1355807 versus 1339480). Random string sorting favors the 676X by 3.4% (137976 versus 133467), and physics by 2.1% (8281 versus 8109).

The single 6732P win comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 106697 against 105231 for the 676X, a 1.4% advantage. That is a narrow margin and an isolated result. It suggests the 6732P has slightly better handling of certain instruction extensions, but the difference is small enough that it will rarely matter in real-world workloads.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the Intel Xeon 676X as the stronger performer in this pairing. It wins 15 of 16 comparisons, and its losses are limited to a single 1.4% deficit. The 676X offers a 60.2% advantage in single-threaded PassMark tests, which is a massive gap for two 32-core server chips. Its average benchmark score of 158540 also positions it favorably against its nearest rivals: it trails the AMD EPYC 9355P by only 1.1%, the AMD EPYC 7663 by 2.1%, and the AMD EPYC 9375F by 2.4%, while leading the Intel Xeon 6745P by 2.4%. The 6732P, by contrast, sits at 143444, essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D (0.2% behind), the Intel Xeon 674X (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Xeon w9-3575X (0.6% behind), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7643P by 1%.

The 6732P does have a higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.80 GHz), which may help in steady-state loads that never boost. But the benchmark results do not show that advantage materializing in any meaningful way. The 676X wins every Cinebench test, every PassMark math test, and all but one of the PassMark specialized tests. Its 4.90 GHz boost clock is simply too high for the 6732P to overcome.

For buyers choosing between these two, the 676X is the clear pick on measured performance. The 6732P does hold one advantage that the benchmarks do not capture: it is an active server product with a different positioning in the Xeon 6 family, and its launch MSRP is $5295. The 676X, meanwhile, has a launch MSRP of $2499. Neither price point is discussed further here, but the recorded performance data alone makes the 676X the stronger choice unless a specific workload favors the 6732P's extended instruction handling.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 676X dominates in nearly every category. If the workload involves Cinebench-style rendering, the 676X wins every time, with a consistent 21.7% margin across R15, R20, and R23. The same applies to PassMark multithread, where the 676X posts 91115 versus 74849. For single-threaded applications, the 676X is in another class entirely, with a 60.2% lead in PassMark single_thread. This makes it the better choice for lightly threaded server tasks, database front-ends, or any environment where per-core speed matters.

The 676X also wins in integer math, floating point math, prime number finding, data encryption, data compression, random string sorting, and physics. The margins range from 2.1% to 17.5%. These are broad wins across both general-purpose arithmetic and specialized workloads.

The 6732P's only recorded win is PassMark extended instructions, where it leads by 1.4%. This test measures performance on instruction set extensions, and while the margin is small, it does indicate that the 6732P handles certain SIMD or specialized instruction paths slightly better. For workloads that rely heavily on those extensions, the 6732P may edge ahead, but the advantage is thin enough that it will not show up in most real applications.

In practical terms, the 6732P is the right choice only if the application in question is known to be sensitive to extended instruction throughput and the 1.4% difference matters. For everything else, the 676X is the safer and faster option.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X wins 15 of 16 head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Xeon 6732P wins only one, PassMark extended instructions, by 1.4%.

Q: How big is the single-threaded performance gap?

A: In PassMark single_thread, the 676X scores 4015 versus 2506 for the 6732P, a 60.2% advantage. Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a 21.7% lead for the 676X at 1101 versus 905.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 32 cores and 64 threads. They also share the same L1 cache of 112 KB per core, L2 cache of 2 MB per core, and L3 cache of 144 MB shared.

Q: Is the 6732P competitive in multi-threaded workloads?

A: No. The 676X leads by 21.7% in Cinebench R23 multicore (77447 versus 63621) and by 21.7% in PassMark multithread (91115 versus 74849).

Q: What is the only test the 6732P wins?

A: PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 106697 versus 105231 for the 676X, a 1.4% margin.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The 676X has an average score of 158540, trailing the AMD EPYC 9355P by 1.1%, the AMD EPYC 7663 by 2.1%, and the AMD EPYC 9375F by 2.4%, while leading the Intel Xeon 6745P by 2.4%. The 6732P averages 143444, trailing the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D by 0.2%, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X by 0.6%, and the AMD EPYC 7643P by 1%, while leading the Intel Xeon 674X by 0.2%.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Granite Rapids architecture and use the same 5 nm process node from Intel. They share the same socket, Intel Socket 4710, and both are active server/workstation products. The 676X belongs to the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation, while the 6732P belongs to the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation. That generation split is the primary architectural distinction: the 676X is the workstation-oriented part, while the 6732P is the standard server part.

The die size differs as well. The 676X uses a 2x 598 mm² configuration, while the 6732P has no recorded die size in the database. Both share identical cache hierarchies: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. Neither has 3D V-Cache.

Memory support is also identical on paper: both support DDR5, use an eight-channel memory bus, and offer 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe implementation differs slightly: the 676X provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 6732P provides Gen 5 with 136 lanes (CPU only). That is a 8-lane advantage for the 6732P, which could matter in systems with many expansion cards or NVMe drives.

The multiplier is unlocked on the 676X but locked on the 6732P. This is a meaningful architectural difference for anyone planning to overclock or fine-tune clock behavior. The 676X also has a different part number (SA2CY) versus the 6732P (SRVP2). Neither CPU has integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU or a server management controller for display output.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: 32 cores and 64 threads for both. The base clocks differ significantly, with the 676X at 2.80 GHz and the 6732P at 3.80 GHz. The boost clocks also differ, but in the opposite direction: the 676X boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the 6732P boosts to 4.10 GHz. The higher base clock on the 6732P may help in sustained all-core loads that do not trigger boost, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into wins.

TDP differs by 75 watts: the 676X is rated at 275 W, while the 6732P is rated at 350 W. Both fit the same socket, so cooling and power delivery requirements will differ in practice. The 676X achieves better benchmark scores while drawing less rated power, which is a notable efficiency advantage in the recorded data.

The PCIe lane count differs, with the 676X offering 128 lanes and the 6732P offering 136 lanes. The 6732P also ships with a locked multiplier, while the 676X is multiplier-unlocked. Release dates differ too: the 676X launched on 2026-02-01, and the 6732P launched on 2025-05-21. The launch MSRP values are $2499 for the 676X and $5295 for the 6732P. The 676X carries part number SA2CY, and the 6732P carries SRVP2. Both are listed as active production parts, both target the server/workstation market, and both sit in the 98th percentile of all CPUs in the database.