Intel Xeon 6737P vs Intel Xeon 676X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall advantage for the Intel Xeon 676X, which wins 14 of the 16 head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin comes in the PassMark single-thread test, where the 676X scores 4015 versus 3048, a 31.7% lead. Cinebench results reinforce this pattern across every version tested. In R15, the Xeon 676X scores 7806 against 6822 for the 6737P, a 14.4% advantage. The same 14.4% delta appears in R20 multicore, with 32527 against 28428. Single-core results in R20 follow suit: 4591 versus 4013, again 14.4% ahead. Cinebench R23 shows a 14.4% gap as well, with 77447 for the 676X against 67688.

Multithreaded PassMark performance lands at 91115, which is 14.4% higher than the 6737P's 79634. Data compression work sees a 17.2% advantage for the 676X, with 1355807 against 1157255. Floating point math shows the 676X ahead by 9.6%, scoring 283570 over 258811. Integer math gives the 676X a 7.3% edge with 354777 versus 330756. Random string sorting favors the same chip by 6.5% at 137976 against 129510. Prime number finding is 5.4% better for the 676X (738 against 697 in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, a 5.9% delta). Data encryption is closer still, with the 676X winning by 3.1% (67638 against 65615).

There are two recorded wins for the Intel Xeon 6737P. The PassMark physics test shows it ahead by 11.5% with a score of 9362 against 8281. The extended instructions test gives the 6737P a tiny 0.2% edge, 105453 against 105231. Notably, note that the two single-thread PassMark entries are identical but listed twice under slightly different test names: passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread both score 4015 for the 676X and 3048 for the 6737P.

Average benchmark scores place the 676X at 158540, versus 140694 for the 6737P. The 676X sits at the 98th percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database. The 6737P also reaches the 98th percentile. For the 676X, the nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9355P at an average score of 160358, which is 1.1% higher than the 676X. The AMD EPYC 7663 is 2.1% higher at 161973, while the Intel Xeon 6745P trails by 2.4% at 154858. The AMD EPYC 9375F leads the 676X by 2.4% at 162497. For the 6737P, the nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 674X at 143103, which is 1.7% higher, and the Intel Xeon 6732P at 143444 (1.9% higher). The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D shows 143735 (2.1% higher), and the Intel Xeon w9-3575X at 144323 (2.5% higher).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon 676X boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 6737P boosts to 4.00 GHz. The 676X also has a lower base clock at 2.80 GHz compared to the 6737P's 2.90 GHz.

Q: Are both chips built on the same manufacturing node?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Xeon 676X and the Intel Xeon 6737P are fabricated on Intel's 5 nm process in the Granite Rapids architecture.

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

A: The 676X leads by 31.7% with a PassMark single-thread score of 4015 versus 3048 for the 6737P. Cinebench single-core tests also favor the 676X by 14.3% in R15 (1101 against 963) and 14.4% in R20 (4591 against 4013).

Q: Which chip has higher power consumption?

A: The 676X has a TDP of 275 watts, while the 6737P has a TDP of 270 watts.

Q: Are the memory support features identical?

A: Both support DDR5 memory, use an eight-channel memory bus, and deliver 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe lane counts?

A: The 676X provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 6737P provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Granite Rapids architecture and the 5 nm process node from Intel. The core counts match at 32 cores and 64 threads each. L1 cache is 112 KB per core on both, L2 is 2 MB per core on both, and L3 is 144 MB shared on both. The key architectural difference lies in the physical die configuration. The 676X uses a dual-die design listed as "2x 598 mm²", while the 6737P uses a single die of 598 mm². This dual-die approach likely contributes to the 676X's higher memory and PCIe capabilities, though the memory bus and bandwidth figures are identical. Both chips support DDR5 across eight channels at 409.6 GB/s. The 676X has a PCIe Gen 5 interface with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the 6737P has 88 lanes (CPU only). The 676X has an unlocked multiplier, while the 6737P is locked. The 676X belongs to the Xeon 600 series (Granite Rapids-WS) generation, while the 6737P belongs to the Xeon 6 series (Granite Rapids-SP) generation. Neither processor includes integrated graphics. Both have active production status.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds differ. The 676X runs a 2.80 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost, while the 6737P runs a 2.90 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. TDP is close but not equal: 275 watts for the 676X versus 270 watts for the 6737P. The die size is a major divider: the 676X is listed as "2x 598 mm²" versus 598 mm² for the 6737P. PCIe lane count differs at 128 versus 88 lanes. The multiplier is unlocked on the 676X and locked on the 6737P. The release dates differ, with the 6737P appearing earlier in the database. The launch MSRP for the 676X is $2499, while the 6737P has a launch MSRP of $4995. The part numbers differ: SA2CY for the 676X and SRVNZ for the 6737P. All other measured specifications match: cores, threads, L1/L2/L3 cache, memory type, memory channel count, memory bandwidth, ECC support, socket (Intel Socket 4710), process node, foundry, and integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 676X dominates in nearly every measured category. Its largest win is in single-threaded PassMark performance, 31.7% ahead. This makes it the stronger choice for workloads that depend on high per-core responsiveness. The data compression advantage of 17.2% also signals a clear edge for data-heavy throughput tasks. Cinebench multicore results show a consistent 14.4% lead across R15, R20, and R23, indicating a broad advantage in render workloads. PassMark multithread scores follow the same pattern at 14.4% ahead. Floating point math is 9.6% better, integer math is 7.3% better, and random string sorting is 6.5% better. Even encryption, where the gap is narrow at 3.1%, still favors the 676X.

The Intel Xeon 6737P has two specific wins. The PassMark physics test shows an 11.5% advantage for the 6737P, which suggests it may be better suited for physics simulation workloads as measured by that benchmark. The extended instructions test gives the 6737P a marginal 0.2% edge, essentially a statistical tie but recorded as a win. For users prioritizing these two test categories, the 6737P holds a specific, though narrow, advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Xeon 676X as the higher-performing processor in this comparison. It wins 14 of 16 head-to-head tests, with especially large margins in single-thread performance, data compression, and all Cinebench versions. Its average benchmark score of 158540 is well ahead of the 6737P's 140694. The 676X also carries a lower launch MSRP of $2499 versus $4995 for the 6737P, though that alone should not be the deciding factor without considering workload fit.

The Intel Xeon 6737P is the better choice only for scenarios where the PassMark physics workload is the priority, given its 11.5% advantage. Its extended instructions result is effectively even with the 676X. The 6737P also has a slightly lower TDP of 270 watts and a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz, which may matter in power-constrained or lightly threaded situations where base frequency is more relevant than boost headroom. However, the 676X's unlocked multiplier and much higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz give it the flexibility and headroom that the 6737P lacks.

For general server and workstation workloads, the benchmark record favors the 676X across rendering, compression, math, and single-thread tasks. The 6737P remains a capable alternative for physics-oriented workloads or environments where its lower TDP and higher base clock are valued. The 676X is the default recommendation based on the measured performance data, with the 6737P serving as a specialized alternative rather than a general-purpose equal.