EPYC 9354P vs Xeon 6737P

CPU

GPU

EPYC 9354P

32 Cores64 Thrd280 WWMax: 3.8 GHz2022

EPYC family

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon 6737P

32 Cores64 Thrd270 WWMax: 4 GHz2025

Similar parts

··

Buy on Amazon

EPYC 9354P vs Xeon 6737P Performance Spectrum

EPYC 9354P

32 / 64

74,808

0.0%

Ryzen AI Max 390

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX

Ryzen 9 7945HX3D

Ryzen 9 9950X

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper 7970X

Ryzen Threadripper 9970X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7985WX

Xeon 6737P

32 / 64

79,634

+6.5%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

EPYC 9354P vs Xeon 6737P FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

EPYC 9354P vs Xeon 6737P: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

EPYC 9354P

2022

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 144 MB).
✅Costs $2,265 less on MSRP ($2,730 MSRP vs $4,995 MSRP).
✅Delivers 71.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 27.4 vs 15.9 PassMark/$ ($2,730 MSRP vs $4,995 MSRP).
✅45.5% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 88) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (74,808 vs 79,634).

Xeon 6737P

2025

Why buy it

✅+6.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 270W instead of 280W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 9354P across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (144 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 15.9 vs 27.4 PassMark/$ ($4,995 MSRP vs $2,730 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon 6737P better than EPYC 9354P?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, EPYC 9354P is ahead with a 9.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6737P pulls ahead with 6.5% better PassMark. EPYC 9354P also has the bigger cache pool with 77.8% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 144 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon 6737P is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.5% better PassMark, backed by 32 cores and 64 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon 6737P is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 9354P is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Xeon 6737P comes in 83.0% more expensive on MSRP at $4,995 MSRP versus $2,730 MSRP, and it still gives you 6.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that EPYC 9354P is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 9.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 9354P is also 71.9% better value on MSRP (27.4 vs 15.9 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Xeon 6737P makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2022) and more multi-core headroom with 32 cores / 64 threads instead of 32/64. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

EPYC 9354P vs Xeon 6737P Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

EPYC 9354P

The EPYC 9354P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 10 November 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 3.25 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm, 6 nm process technology. Socket: SP5. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800. Passmark benchmark score: 74,808 points. Launch price was $2,730.

Xeon 6737P

The Xeon 6737P is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 24 February 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Granite Rapids (2024−2025) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 144 MB (total). L2 cache: 2 MB (per core). Built on Intel 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA4710. Thermal design power (TDP): 270 Watt. Memory support: DDR5(6400MT/s). Passmark benchmark score: 79,634 points. Launch price was $4,995.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the EPYC 9354P and Xeon 6737P share an identical 32-core/64-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.8 GHz on the EPYC 9354P versus 4 GHz on the Xeon 6737P — a 5.1% clock advantage for the Xeon 6737P (base: 3.25 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The EPYC 9354P uses the Genoa (2022−2023) architecture (5 nm, 6 nm), while the Xeon 6737P uses Granite Rapids (2024−2025) (Intel 3 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 9354P scores 74,808 against the Xeon 6737P's 79,634 — a 6.2% lead for the Xeon 6737P. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 9354P vs 144 MB (total) on the Xeon 6737P.

Feature	EPYC 9354P	Xeon 6737P
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	32 / 64
Boost Clock	3.8 GHz	4 GHz+5%
Base Clock	3.25 GHz+12%	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+78%	144 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	2 MB (per core)+100%
Process	5 nm, 6 nm	Intel 3 nm-40%
Architecture	Genoa (2022−2023)	Granite Rapids (2024−2025)
PassMark	74,808	79,634+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	2,000
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	45,000

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 9354P uses the SP5 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Xeon 6737P uses LGA4710 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 4800 on the EPYC 9354P versus DDR5-6400 on the Xeon 6737P — the Xeon 6737P supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 9354P supports up to 6144 GB of RAM compared to 4096 GB — 50% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 12 (EPYC 9354P) vs 8 (Xeon 6737P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 9354P) vs 88 (Xeon 6737P) — the EPYC 9354P offers 40 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP5 (EPYC 9354P) and C741 (Xeon 6737P).

Feature	EPYC 9354P	Xeon 6737P
Socket	SP5	LGA4710
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	4800	DDR5-6400+33%
Max RAM Capacity	6144 GB+50%	4096 GB
RAM Channels	12+50%	8
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+45%	88

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP (EPYC 9354P) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon 6737P). Primary use case: Xeon 6737P targets High Performance Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 9354P rivals Xeon Platinum 8468; Xeon 6737P rivals EPYC 9005.

Feature	EPYC 9354P	Xeon 6737P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, SEV-SNP	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	High Performance Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the EPYC 9354P was priced at $2730, while the Xeon 6737P came in at $4995. On launch pricing ($2730 vs $4995), EPYC 9354P was $2265 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 9354P delivers 27.4 pts/$ vs 15.9 pts/$ for the Xeon 6737P — making the EPYC 9354P the 52.9% better value option.

Feature	EPYC 9354P	Xeon 6737P
MSRP	$2730-45%	$4995
Performance per Dollar	27.4+72%	15.9
Release Date	2022	2025

Search EPYC 9354P on Amazon

Search Xeon 6737P on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.