Intel Xeon 6737P vs Intel Xeon w7-3565X Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6737P and the Intel Xeon w7-3565X are both 32-core, 64-thread workstation and server processors from Intel, but the recorded data shows they represent very different design philosophies. The 6737P is a Granite Rapids-SP part built on a newer 5 nm process, while the w7-3565X is a Sapphire Rapids Xeon W with an unlocked multiplier and a higher boost ceiling. Across the head-to-head suite, the 6737P wins 14 of 16 contests, including a rout in physics, yet the w7-3565X takes the single-thread Passmark results by a clear margin. This comparison unpacks where each chip's strengths lie.

The Verdict

The database makes the choice straightforward for most workloads. If the priority is raw throughput, the Xeon 6737P is the pick: it leads every multi-core benchmark, wins every integer, floating point, encryption and compression test, and posts an average benchmark score of 140694 against 118307 for the w7-3565X. Its 98th percentile placement against all CPUs in the database edges out the w7-3565X at the 97th percentile.

The w7-3565X has two genuine arguments in its favor. First, single-threaded responsiveness: it wins Passmark single-thread with 3407 points to 3048, a 10.5 percent advantage, which matters for applications that lean on a few fast cores. Second, it is the only one of the pair with an unlocked multiplier, giving overclockers manual control the 6737P lacks. It also offers more PCIe lanes (112 versus 88) for GPU- and accelerator-heavy platforms. For everything else, including the heavily threaded rendering, simulation and compute tests recorded here, the 6737P is the stronger performer.

Architecture Differences

These chips sit one generation apart. The Xeon 6737P belongs to the Xeon 6 family, codenamed Granite Rapids (Granite Rapids-SP), and is manufactured on Intel's 5 nm node as a single 598 mm² die. The Xeon w7-3565X belongs to the Xeon W line, codenamed Sapphire Rapids, and is built on Intel's 10 nm process as a multi-chip package of four 477 mm² dies.

Cache is where the newer architecture shows its hand. The 6737P carries 112 KB of L1 per core and a much larger 144 MB shared L3, compared with 80 KB of L1 per core and 82.5 MB of L3 on the w7-3565X. Both allocate 2 MB of L2 per core. That near-doubling of L3 capacity on the 6737P helps explain its consistent multi-core leads.

Memory and platform support diverge in small but meaningful ways. Both support DDR5 with ECC across an eight-channel bus, but the 6737P delivers substantially more memory bandwidth, 409.6 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s, thanks to the newer platform. The w7-3565X counters with more PCIe connectivity: 112 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU against 88 on the 6737P. Neither chip has integrated graphics, both are actively produced, and they use different sockets, Socket 4710 for the 6737P and Socket 4677 for the w7-3565X, so they are not interchangeable on any board.

Clock behavior differs notably. The 6737P runs a 2.90 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost with a 270 W TDP. The w7-3565X runs a lower 2.50 GHz base but boosts higher at 4.80 GHz, drawing a 335 W TDP. The w7-3565X's aggressive boost is exactly why it wins single-threaded tests, while the 6737P's newer cores deliver more work per clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a remarkably consistent story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 6737P scores 6822 against 6052, a 12.7 percent win. R15 single-core goes the same way, 963 versus 854, up 12.8 percent. Cinebench R20 multi-core lands at 28428 against 25218 (12.7 percent) and R20 single-core at 4013 against 3560 (12.7 percent). Cinebench R23 multi-core finishes at 67688 versus 60045, again 12.7 percent in the 6737P's favor. Rendering is a clean sweep for the Granite Rapids chip.

Passmark's compute tests amplify that gap. Integer math lands at 330756 versus 279202 (18.5 percent ahead), floating point math at 258811 versus 218720 (18.3 percent ahead), and extended instructions at 105453 versus 85856 (22.8 percent ahead). Data encryption is a 20 percent win for the 6737P, 65615 against 54676, and data compression a 7.6 percent win at 1157255 versus 1075602. Random string sorting favors the 6737P by 16.8 percent.

The two most lopsided results deserve special attention. Passmark Physics is a 120.1 percent blowout: 9362 for the 6737P versus 4254 for the w7-3565X. Passmark Find Prime Numbers is nearly as dramatic, 697 versus 398, a 75.1 percent gap that reflects the 6737P's stronger per-cycle computational throughput. For simulation and number-crunching workloads, these are decisive margins.

The w7-3565X gets its moment in Passmark single-thread, where it scores 3407 against 3048, winning by 10.5 percent. That result aligns with its 4.80 GHz boost clock. Interestingly, the recorded Cinebench single-core tests do not follow suit: the 6737P wins all of them, which suggests the w7-3565X's advantage is specific to Passmark's lightly threaded workload rather than universal. The overall split is 14 wins for the 6737P and 2 for the w7-3565X.

Specification Differences

Only the fields where the two CPUs differ are listed here:

• Base clock: 2.90 GHz (6737P) vs 2.50 GHz (w7-3565X)
• Boost clock: 4.00 GHz (6737P) vs 4.80 GHz (w7-3565X)
• TDP: 270 W (6737P) vs 335 W (w7-3565X)
• Socket: Intel Socket 4710 (6737P) vs Intel Socket 4677 (w7-3565X)
• Codename: Granite Rapids (6737P) vs Sapphire Rapids (w7-3565X)
• Generation: Xeon 6, Granite Rapids-SP (6737P) vs Xeon W, Sapphire Rapids (w7-3565X)
• Process node: 5 nm (6737P) vs 10 nm (w7-3565X)
• Die configuration: single 598 mm² die (6737P) vs 4x 477 mm² dies (w7-3565X)
• L1 cache: 112 KB per core (6737P) vs 80 KB per core (w7-3565X)
• L3 cache: 144 MB shared (6737P) vs 82.5 MB (w7-3565X)
• Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s (6737P) vs 307.2 GB/s (w7-3565X)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 88 CPU lanes (6737P) vs Gen 5, 112 CPU lanes (w7-3565X)
• Multiplier: locked (6737P) vs unlocked (w7-3565X)
• Release date: February 2025 (6737P) vs August 2024 (w7-3565X)
• Launch MSRP: $4995 (6737P) vs $2689 (w7-3565X)
• Part number: SRVNZ (6737P) vs SRN73 (w7-3565X)

Both chips share 32 cores, 64 threads, 2 MB of L2 per core, DDR5 with ECC on an eight-channel bus, no integrated graphics, and active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon 6737P. It wins every multi-core test, including Cinebench R23 at 67688 versus 60045 and Passmark Multithread at 79634 versus 70642, both 12.7 percent victories.

Q: Does the Xeon w7-3565X win anything?

A: Yes. It takes Passmark single-thread with 3407 points versus 3048, a 10.5 percent win, driven by its higher 4.80 GHz boost clock. It is also the only one of the two with an unlocked multiplier.

Q: How large is the biggest gap between them?

A: Passmark Physics, where the 6737P scores 9362 against 4254, a 120.1 percent lead. Find Prime Numbers is also lopsided at 75.1 percent in the 6737P's favor.

Q: Do they use the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The 6737P uses Intel Socket 4710 and the w7-3565X uses Intel Socket 4677, so each requires its own platform.

Q: How do they compare against other CPUs in the database?

A: The 6737P sits in the 98th percentile with an average score of 140694, sitting close to the Intel Xeon 674X (143103) and Intel Xeon 6732P (143444). The w7-3565X sits in the 97th percentile at 118307, near the AMD EPYC 9255 (116388) and Intel Xeon 658X (116060).

Q: Which has more PCIe lanes for expansion cards?

A: The w7-3565X, with 112 Gen 5 CPU lanes versus 88 on the 6737P, a meaningful advantage for GPU-dense workstation builds.