Xeon 6737P vs EPYC 9255
Aggregate performance score
Xeon 6737P outperforms EPYC 9255 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 75 | 70 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.10 | 7.57 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 9.14 | 7.11 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Turin (2024) | Granite Rapids (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 10 October 2024 (1 year ago) | 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,495 | $4,995 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 9255 has 139% better value for money than Xeon 6737P.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 3.25 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.8 GHz | 4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 144 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | Intel 3 nm |
| Die size | 4x 70.6 mm2 | 598 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 82 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33,260 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 2 |
| Socket | SP5 | FCLGA4710 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 270 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512, Intel® AMX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR5(6400MT/s) |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9255 and Xeon 6737P.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 88 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 43.28 | 45.46 |
| Recency | 10 October 2024 | 24 February 2025 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 32 |
| Threads | 48 | 64 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 270 Watt |
EPYC 9255 has 35% lower power consumption.
Xeon 6737P, on the other hand, has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, and 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between AMD EPYC 9255 and Intel Xeon 6737P.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
