Intel Xeon 6732P vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X and Intel Xeon 6732P are both high-end server/workstation processors, but they target different performance profiles. The w9-3575X leads in raw compute and single-threaded throughput, while the 6732P counters with advantages in specific data-handling tasks and memory bandwidth. Benchmark results show a clear split: the w9-3575X wins 12 of 16 head-to-head comparisons, while the 6732P takes 4, yet the overall average benchmark scores remain remarkably close—144323 for the w9-3575X versus 143444 for the 6732P, a delta of only 0.6%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The w9-3575X dominates the Cinebench suite, which stresses pure CPU rendering performance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 7140 against the 6732P’s 6412, a decisive 11.4% lead. The single-core R15 result mirrors this exactly: 1008 versus 905, again an 11.4% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the w9-3575X posts 29751 multicore and 4200 single-core, versus 26720 and 3772 for the 6732P—both margins sit at 11.3%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23, where the w9-3575X reaches 70837 multicore, beating the 6732P’s 63621 by that same 11.3%. This consistency across all three Cinebench versions indicates a fundamental per-thread performance edge, not a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. The w9-3575X wins PassMark multithread with 83338 versus 74849, an 11.3% margin that aligns with its Cinebench dominance. Its single-thread advantage is enormous: 3672 versus 2506, a 46.5% gap that is the largest of any test. The w9-3575X also leads in floating-point math (273398 versus 261703, +4.5%), extended instructions (109843 versus 106697, +2.9%), and find prime numbers (687 versus 628, +9.4%). Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the w9-3575X edging ahead 134723 versus 133467, a 0.9% margin.

However, the 6732P strikes back in several PassMark workloads. Its biggest win is in integer math, where it scores 334340 against the w9-3575X’s 298224—a 10.8% advantage. Data compression also favors the 6732P at 1339480 versus 1219584, a 9% lead. The 6732P wins data encryption by a narrower 2.5% (63848 versus 62258) and physics by a substantial 15.7% (8109 versus 6836). These four victories highlight that the 6732P’s architecture excels at specific integer-heavy and data-processing tasks, even while losing the overall multithreaded race.

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct buyer profiles. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the choice for workloads that depend on raw single-threaded performance and general-purpose compute. Its 46.5% single-thread lead over the 6732P is massive, and its consistent 11.3% advantage across every Cinebench test makes it the clear pick for rendering, simulation, and any application that scales with core count but also values per-core speed. The w9-3575X also benefits from an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking—a feature the 6732P lacks.

The Intel Xeon 6732P, despite losing most benchmarks, is not a straightforward loser. Its wins in integer math, data compression, and physics point to strengths in database work, financial modeling, and scientific computing that rely on integer throughput. The 6732P also offers substantially higher memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s), which could be decisive for memory-bound applications even when raw compute scores lag. For users running such workloads, the 6732P’s 10.8% integer math advantage and 9% data compression edge may outweigh its Cinebench deficits.

Overall, the w9-3575X is the better all-around performer, evidenced by its 12-4 win record and its higher average benchmark score of 144323 versus 143444. But the 6732P is not a compromise—it is a specialized tool for specific data-heavy tasks. Choose the w9-3575X for versatility and single-threaded responsiveness; choose the 6732P if your primary workloads are integer math, compression, or encryption.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The w9-3575X uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process, with a die size of 4x 477 mm². It packs 44 cores and 88 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 97.5 MB of L3 cache. The 6732P, by contrast, uses the newer Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process. It has fewer cores—32 cores and 64 threads—but runs at much higher base and boost clocks of 3.80 GHz and 4.10 GHz respectively. Its cache layout differs significantly: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 144 MB of L3 cache.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both support DDR5 with eight-channel memory buses, but the 6732P’s bandwidth is 409.6 GB/s versus the w9-3575X’s 307.2 GB/s—a 33% advantage for the 6732P. PCIe lanes differ too: the w9-3575X offers 112 Gen 5 lanes, while the 6732P provides 136 Gen 5 lanes. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. The w9-3575X uses Intel Socket 4677, while the 6732P uses Intel Socket 4710. Crucially, the w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking; the 6732P is locked. The 6732P’s higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.20 GHz) partially compensates for its lower core count, but the w9-3575X’s higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 4.10 GHz) helps it win single-threaded tests.

The 6732P’s larger L3 cache (144 MB versus 97.5 MB) and higher per-core L1 (112 KB versus 80 KB) likely explain its wins in data compression and integer math, where cache residency matters. The w9-3575X’s smaller L3 but higher boost clock supports its single-threaded dominance. Both chips are active production parts, with the w9-3575X released on 2024-08-23 and the 6732P on 2025-05-21. The w9-3575X has a launch MSRP of $3789; the 6732P carries a launch MSRP of $5295.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6732P has 32 cores and 64 threads.

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

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the w9-3575X scores 3672 versus the 6732P’s 2506, a 46.5% advantage for the w9-3575X.

Q: Does the 6732P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins four: integer math (334340 versus 298224, +10.8%), data compression (1339480 versus 1219584, +9%), physics (8109 versus 6836, +15.7%), and data encryption (63848 versus 62258, +2.5%).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The 6732P provides 409.6 GB/s, while the w9-3575X provides 307.2 GB/s. Both use eight-channel DDR5 memory.

Q: Are both CPUs overclockable?

A: No, only the w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier. The 6732P is locked.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The w9-3575X averages 144323, while the 6732P averages 143444, a 0.6% difference in favor of the w9-3575X.

Where Each One Wins

The w9-3575X wins in every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23) for both multicore and single-core, with margins between 11.3% and 11.4%. It also wins PassMark multithread (83338 versus 74849), floating-point math (273398 versus 261703), extended instructions (109843 versus 106697), find prime numbers (687 versus 628), random string sorting (134723 versus 133467), and single-thread (3672 versus 2506). This makes it the superior choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, and any application where per-core speed and floating-point throughput are paramount. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and unlocked multiplier give it headroom for overclocking, further extending its lead in latency-sensitive tasks.

The 6732P wins in integer math (334340 versus 298224), data compression (1339480 versus 1219584), physics (8109 versus 6836), and data encryption (63848 versus 62258). Its 144 MB of shared L3 cache and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth are likely why it excels at these data-heavy workloads. This makes the 6732P the better fit for database query processing, file compression pipelines, financial risk calculations, and encryption-heavy networking tasks. Its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz also ensures consistent performance under sustained loads, even if its boost clock is lower at 4.10 GHz.

For users with mixed workloads, the w9-3575X offers broader strength. Its 12-4 win record and higher average score demonstrate greater overall versatility. However, the 6732P’s wins are not marginal—its 15.7% physics lead and 10.8% integer math lead are significant. The choice ultimately hinges on whether your primary applications resemble Cinebench (favoring the w9-3575X) or PassMark integer/compression tests (favoring the 6732P).