Intel Xeon 6737P vs Intel Xeon 6745P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 6745P and the Intel Xeon 6737P are both 32-core, 64-thread Granite Rapids processors, but the recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The 6745P wins 14 of 16 head-to-head comparisons, with its most dominant victories coming in data compression, single-thread workloads, and multi-core rendering. The 6737P manages only two wins, one in prime number search and one in physics simulation, with the latter being a massive outlier in its favor.

In Cinebench testing, the 6745P leads across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 7214 against 6822 for the 6737P, a 5.7% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows the same 5.7% delta, with 1018 versus 963. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 30062 for the 6745P versus 28428 for the 6737P, again a 5.7% lead. The single-core R20 test shows a slightly larger gap of 5.8%, with scores of 4244 and 4013. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 6745P scores 71578 against 67688, maintaining that consistent 5.7% margin.

The PassMark suite reveals where the real separation occurs. The single-thread test shows a 13.2% advantage for the 6745P, scoring 3450 versus 3048. This is the largest single-core delta recorded between the two processors. Data compression shows an even bigger gap: 1352801 for the 6745P against 1157255 for the 6737P, a 16.9% difference. This is the single largest percentage win in the entire comparison.

The 6737P's two victories are notable but narrow. In prime number searching, it scores 697 versus 681, a 2.3% edge. The physics test is the dramatic exception: 9362 for the 6737P versus 6144 for the 6745P, a 34.4% swing in favor of the lower-clocked chip. This result is anomalous given the otherwise consistent pattern, and it suggests the physics workload behaves differently from the other PassMark tests.

In the remaining workload categories, the 6745P maintains a steady but smaller lead. Floating-point math shows 267438 versus 258811, a 3.3% advantage. Random string sorting is 3.1% ahead at 133528 versus 129510. Extended instructions favor the 6745P by 2.7%, with 108326 against 105453. Integer math is close at 1.9%, with 336926 versus 330756. Data encryption shows only a 1.6% gap, 66665 against 65615. The multi-thread PassMark score returns to the 5.7% pattern, with 84210 versus 79634.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6745P is the clear choice for workloads that depend on raw single-thread performance and data throughput. Its 13.2% single-thread advantage and 16.9% data compression lead make it the stronger option for database operations, compression algorithms, and any application that relies heavily on per-core efficiency. The consistent 5.7% margins across all Cinebench versions indicate that rendering and content creation workloads will scale favorably with the 6745P, regardless of the specific renderer or benchmark version used.

The 6745P also dominates in multi-threaded general computing. The PassMark multi-thread score of 84210 versus 79634 confirms that the 32 cores are more effectively utilized in the higher-clocked chip. For floating-point math, integer arithmetic, and string sorting operations, the 6745P maintains a 1.9% to 3.3% edge, making it the safer bet for scientific computing, financial modeling, and data processing pipelines.

The Intel Xeon 6737P has a narrower but still relevant use case. Its 34.4% win in physics simulation is the single largest margin in either direction, suggesting that specific physics engines or simulation workloads may favor the 6737P's particular configuration. The 2.3% edge in prime number searching is small but consistent, indicating that certain integer-heavy algorithmic workloads might not see the same benefit from higher clocks as other tasks.

For mixed workloads, the 6737P is not far behind. The 1.6% to 2.7% gaps in encryption, extended instructions, integer math, and string sorting show that the 6737P can handle general server tasks competently, but it will consistently trail the 6745P by a meaningful margin. The 6737P's physics advantage should not be ignored, but it appears to be an isolated strength rather than a general pattern.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Granite Rapids architecture, are built on Intel's 5 nm process, and use the Intel Socket 4710. They also have identical per-core cache structures: 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The critical architectural difference lies in the L3 cache and the die configuration.

The Intel Xeon 6745P features 336 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6737P has only 144 MB. This 192 MB difference is substantial and likely contributes to the 6745P's advantage in data compression and single-thread workloads, where larger cache hierarchies reduce memory latency and improve data locality. The 6745P also uses a dual-die configuration with a total die size of 2x 598 mm², whereas the 6737P uses a single die of 598 mm². This suggests the 6745P combines two compute dies, which may explain its larger shared L3 cache pool.

Both processors support DDR5 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and identical memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. They also share the same PCIe configuration: Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). ECC memory support is present on both, and neither has integrated graphics. The production status for both is active, and both were released on the same date.

The clock speed difference is the other major architectural factor. The 6745P has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the 6737P operates at 2.90 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. This 200 MHz difference at both base and boost levels explains the consistent 5.7% performance gap seen in Cinebench and multi-thread PassMark tests. The 6745P also has a higher TDP of 300 watts versus 270 watts for the 6737P, reflecting the additional power budget needed to sustain those higher clocks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 6745P | Intel Xeon 6737P |

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

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 300 W | 270 W |

| Die Size | 2x 598 mm² | 598 mm² |

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

| Launch MSRP | $5250 | $4995 |

| Part Number | SRWPAQ7L9 | SRVNZ |

All other specifications are identical: 32 cores, 64 threads, 5 nm process, Intel Socket 4710, DDR5 memory support, eight-channel memory bus, 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 5 with 88 lanes, no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, and active production status. Both are part of the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation and were released on the same date.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon 6745P has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel Xeon 6737P has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon 6745P has 336 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6737P has 144 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor wins in physics simulation benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon 6737P wins by a substantial 34.4% margin, scoring 9362 versus 6144 for the Intel Xeon 6745P.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Intel Xeon 6737P outperforms the 6745P?

A: Yes, in addition to physics simulation, the 6737P wins in prime number searching by 2.3%, scoring 697 versus 681. These are the only two benchmark categories the 6737P wins out of 16 total comparisons.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both processors?

A: Both processors have identical memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, using DDR5 memory with an eight-channel memory bus.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 6745P leads by 13.2% in the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 3450 versus 3048 for the Intel Xeon 6737P.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon 6745P is the stronger processor in nearly every measurable category. It wins 14 of 16 head-to-head comparisons, with the most significant advantages in single-thread performance (13.2%), data compression (16.9%), and all Cinebench multi-core tests (5.7%). Its larger 336 MB L3 cache and dual-die configuration provide a clear architectural edge over the 6737P's 144 MB L3 cache and single-die design.

The Intel Xeon 6737P is not a poor processor. It sits in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, matching the 6745P's percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 674X, Intel Xeon 6732P, AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D, and Intel Xeon w9-3575X, all within 2.5% of its average benchmark score of 140694. The 6737P's physics simulation win is extraordinary, but it is one data point against fourteen losses.

For most server and workstation deployments, the Intel Xeon 6745P is the logical choice. The 5.7% consistent lead in rendering and multi-thread workloads, combined with the 13.2% single-thread advantage, means it will handle a broader range of tasks more effectively. The 300 W TDP is higher, but the performance return is proportional.

The Intel Xeon 6737P deserves consideration only for workloads that specifically prioritize physics simulation performance. Its 34.4% win in that category is the largest margin recorded in the entire comparison, and no other processor in its nearest rival group comes close to matching that physics score. For general-purpose server workloads, the 6737P will trail the 6745P by a noticeable but not overwhelming margin, with the average benchmark score difference being 154858 versus 140694, a 10.1% gap.

The recorded data supports a straightforward conclusion: choose the Intel Xeon 6745P for maximum performance across all workloads, and choose the Intel Xeon 6737P only if physics simulation is the dominant application and power consumption is a primary concern. The 6737P's lower 270 W TDP and lower launch MSRP of $4995 versus $5250 make it a viable option for power-constrained environments, but the 6745P's performance advantages justify its higher specifications in most scenarios.