R15 benchmark: Cinebench Ranking Benchmark Results R15 Scores Database

Cinebench Ranking Benchmark Results R15 Scores Database

*  values marked with * are not real measurements but a rough average estimate to compare CB 15 with CB 11.5 values

What is CINEBENCH R15?

CINEBENCH R15 is a systems monitoring service that uses specifically generated CG images and scenes to test the efficiency of CPUs and GPUs, whether on your own machine or render farm, or on cloud-based remote machines.
The images and scenes that CINEBENCH R15 works with are created using Maxon Cinema 4D, but, as Dr. Bernd Lutz of Maxon explained to me, “depending on how other programs handle details, e.g. scaling with more cores, task switching, memory handling, etc., the results could differ when you do similar tests with another program. Nevertheless, the test results you get from CINEBENCH R15 will be a good indicator which CPUs/GPUs are better or worse than others.”
So there will be differences in the scores (see below) if you are using Maya or Houdini or whatever, but essentially you will beable to identify the processors that best suit your ambitions.

How it works

Main Processor Performance (CPU)

The test scenario is designed to use all of your system’s processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene (the test scene is an extract from «No Keyframes», a lovely piece of animation by Aix Sponza – you can watch the whole fine work here).
The test puts up a number of render requirements calculated to drive any processor close to insane, with sharp and blurry reflections, area lights, shadows, procedural shaders, anti-aliasing, and so on.
CINEBENCH R15 use this scene because it makes use of algorithms that are sure to put stress on all the available processor cores.
Maxon tells us that “CINEBENCH R15 can measure systems with up to 256 processor threads.” Without making any attempt to count them myself, it looks accurate to say, as they do, that “the test scene contains approximately 2,000 objects, which in turn contain more than 300,000 polygons in total.” Of course, in high end production scenes there can be millions of polygons, but this is enough to test your system without wasting time.
The score results of this test are displayed on the CINEBENCH R15 UI as points (pts). Simply enough, more points means better performance.

Graphics Card Performance (OpenGL)

To test the GPU performance in OpenGL mode CINEBENCH R15 uses a car chase scene (created by renderbaron). This is a dense scene that pulls out all the stops. The graphics card has to display a huge amount of geometry (nearly 1 million polygons) and textures, as well as a variety of effects, such as motion blur, bump maps, transparency, refraction, environments, lighting and others.
Performance depends on the GPU processor you are testing, and it also depends on the drivers used. The intention is to evaluate the performance across different disciplines and give a good average overview of the capabilities of your graphics hardware. The result is measured in frames per second refresh speed of the GPU (fps). As with the CPU test, the higher the number, the faster your graphics card.
Maxon provides specific technical information regarding both these test processes on the tech-page of CINEBENCH R15.

Why do we ask you to use it?

If you are testing your own machine, or if you are looking to upgrade your processors, CINEBENCH R15 offers an invaluable service. This applies to RebusFarm’s processors as much as anyone’s. That is why we ask you to send us your CINEBENCH R15 results. It helps us to maintain the high standards of service we have set for ourselves over the past years. Knowing the results experienced by our clients is all part of how we can make sure RebusFarm remains the outstanding cloud render service that its many clients know it to be.
Also, it would be a kindness to us as these results will help to raise our online presence and thus recruit more clients. As, we hope, our satisfied clients, we are sure you would want to help us find a wider audience for our service.

Thank you, vielen Dank

Cinebench R15 CPU Scores | Live 2020 Results

Updated: Oct 20, 2022 3:44 pm

Share this article…

Cinebench R15 Explained

What Is A Good Cinebench Score?




Cinebench R15 Scores List

Multi-Core Vs. Single-Core Cinebench Results

What Is A Good Cinebench Score For Gaming?

AMD Vs. Intel

Final Thoughts

Cinebench is a cross-platform testing suite that is specifically used to test the efficiency and performance of both your CPU and GPU. Even though heavily criticized by tech giants Intel, thousands of people still decide to use Cinebench as their primary testing suite. But what exactly does your Cinebench score mean?

In the following article, we’ll be explaining everything you need to know about Cinebench and how you can use it to put your own system to the test.

So, without further ado, let’s take a closer look at how Cinebench R15 works.

Cinebench R15 Explained

Cinebench is one of the main testing software suites for enthusiasts looking to benchmark their CPUs and GPUs. The test scenario is purpose-designed to make use of all your system’s processing power when rendering a generated CG 3D scene.

The suite can be used to test your CPU and GPU – with users having options to benchmark their CPUs in single and multi-core scenarios. The test itself runs a number of different rendering requirements, which have been carefully chosen to push your components to the very limit. Sharp edges, blurry reflections, shadows, procedural shaders, and anti-aliasing have all been used within the test scenario to ensure all graphical areas are pushed.

At the end of the test, Cinebench will generate a score based on how well your hardware has handled the test. In the suite itself, Cinebench will show you (roughly) where you rank amongst other CPUs/GPUs. This will give you an initial idea of how well your system ranks.

See Pic Below:

As you can see from the test picture above, our 3900X ranked pretty high in the multi-core benchmark. It’s placed us at the top of the list and shows a clear indication of how powerful it is over alternative CPUs.

What Is A Good Cinebench Score?

So, what exactly is a good Cinebench score? It’s all good knowing whether or not your CPU can beat another, but how do I know whether I’ve got a good score for gaming or not? What if I want to do CPU intensive tasks like 3D animation and rendering?

Well, don’t worry, we’re going to explore exactly what score you should be looking to get for a variety of different scenarios.   So, let’s get into it.


Let’s start with gaming. Gaming can be a fairly demanding task and one that, most of the time, requires high single-core performance from your CPU. For less intensive gaming, I would recommend looking for a CPU with a single-core score of around 160. For more demanding AAA game titles, anything over 200 would be our go-to. The i7 9700K (a superb CPU for gaming) gets a score of 212. Having said that, remember, gaming performance doesn’t just come down to the single-core performance. Your GPU plays the strongest role in driving frame rates, so keep that in mind when purchasing your next processor.


As for work tasks, we always recommend looking for a CPU with an excellent multi-core score. Over the past couple of years, AMD’s Ryzen lineup has been the go-to processor for high demanding workflows. This is thanks to their impressive multi-core performance levels. As you’ll soon see from the table below, AMD processors are fairly dominant in the multi-core scoring.


Finally, if you’re looking to do office work and general email browsing, a score of 200+ is going to be more than enough for your needs. If you want to do more demanding tasks like video editing, we would recommend something in the region of 2000-3000. For anything more demanding, 4000 and above is where you should be looking.

Cinebench R15 Scores List

With that in mind, let’s take a quick look at the most up-to-date benchmarking results for today’s CPUs.

CPU Cores GHz Single Core Multi-core
AMD Threadripper 3990X 64 2.9 199 11000
AMD Threadripper 3970X 32 3.7 207 7395
AMD Threadripper 3960X 24 3.8 209 5935
Intel Xeon W-3175X 28 3.1 185 5514
AMD Threadripper 2990WX 32 3 178 5226
Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 28 2. 5 166 4355
AMD Threadripper 2970X 24 3 175 4325
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16 3.5 215 4077
AMD Epyc 7601 32 2.2 140 4068
Intel Xeon Platinum 8168 24 2.7 161 3999
AMD Epyc 7501 32 2 132 3912
Intel Xeon Platinum 8176 28 2.1 165 3873
AMD Epyc 7551P 32 2 132 3838
Intel i9 10980XE 18 3 211 3799
Intel i9 9980XE 18 3 198 3740
Intel i9 9990XE 14 4 221 3732
Intel Xeon Platinum 8164 26 2 161 3720
Intel Xeon Platinum 8170 26 2. 1 161 3596
Intel i9 7980XE 18 2.6 184 3455
Intel Xeon Platinum 8160 24 2.1 161 3444
Intel Xeon Gold 6148 20 2.4 161 3310
AMD Epyc 7451 24 2.3 141 3277
Intel i9 9960X 16 3.1 184 3211
AMD Threadripper 2950X 16 3.5 179 3210
Intel Xeon Gold 6154 18 3 162 3210
Intel Xeon Gold 6150 18 2.7 161 3188
Intel i9 9940X 14 3.3 190 3173
AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 3.8 213 3168
Intel i9 7960X 16 2.8 184 3161
Intel Xeon Gold 6152 22 2. 1 161 3157
AMD Epyc 7401P 24 2 132 3156
AMD Epyc 7401 24 2 132 3156
Intel Xeon Gold 6138 20 2 161 3069
AMD Threadripper 1950X 16 3.4 166 3062
Intel XEON W-2195 18 2.3 187 2949
Intel Core i9-10900K 10 3.7 232 2852
Intel i9 7940X 14 3.1 188 2849
Intel Xeon Gold 6140 18 2.3 161 2785
Intel Core i9-10900 10 2.8 225 2655
AMD Threadripper 2920X 12 3.5 176 2604
Intel XEON E5-2699 v4 22 2.2 120 2460
Intel i9 7920X 12 2. 9 188 2438
Intel i9 9920X 12 3.5 188 2438
AMD Threadripper 1920X 12 3.5 168 2431
Intel Core i7-10700K 8 3.8 228 2345
Intel i9 9900X 10 3.5 197 2274
Intel i9 9900KS 8 4 220 2205
AMD Epyc 7351P 16 2.4 128 2184
AMD Epyc 7351 16 2.4 128 2184
Intel i9 9820X 10 3.3 177 2170
Intel i9 7900X 10 3.3 193 2169
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X 8 3.9 209 2166
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8 3.6 205 2116
Intel i9 9900KF 8 3.6 218 2081
Intel i9 9900K 8 3. 6 218 2081
AMD Epyc 7281 16 2.2 119 2033
AMD Epyc 7301 16 2.2 119 2033
Intel XEON W-2155 10 3.3 191 2021
Intel i9 9980HK 8 2.4 205 1930
Intel XEON E5-2687W v4 12 3 138 1860
Intel i9 9800X 8 3.8 194 1826
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X 6 3.8 202 1795
Intel i7 6950X 10 3 147 1788
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 3.7 180 1783
Intel i7 7820X 8 3.6 176 1734
Intel Xeon Silver 4116 12 2.1 131 1722
Intel i9 9880H 8 2.3 197 1721
AMD Threadripper 1900X 8 3. 8 168 1711
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 8 3.6 161 1613
Intel XEON E5-2650 v4 12 2.2 128 1589
AMD Ryzen 5 3600 6 3.6 197 1581
Intel i7 6900K 8 3.2 154 1562
Intel i7 9700K 8 3.6 212 1542
Intel i7 9700KF 8 3.6 212 1542
AMD Ryzen 7 1700X 8 3.4 145 1540
AMD Ryzen 7 2700 8 3.2 165 1526
Intel Xeon Silver 4114 10 2.2 131 1439
Intel i7 8700K 6 3.7 205 1428
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 8 3 137 1426
Intel i7 8700 6 3.2 195 1420
Intel i7 8086K 6 3. 7 215 1386
AMD Ryzen 5 2600X 6 3.6 176 1373
Intel i7 7800X 6 3.5 184 1333
Intel i7 5960X 8 3 177 1324
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 6 3.4 163 1307
Intel i9 8950HK 6 2.9 206 1269
AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 6 3.3 161 1250
Intel i7 6850K 6 3.6 156 1235
Intel i7 9750H 6 2.6 192 1233
Intel Xeon Silver 4110 8 2.1 131 1148
AMD Ryzen 5 1600 6 3.2 145 1147
Intel Xeon Silver 4109T 8 2 131 1103
Intel XEON E5-2620 v4 8 2.1 125 1096
Intel i7 6800K 6 3. 4 146 1096
AMD Epyc 7251 8 2.1 128 1093
Intel Xeon 2176M 6 2.7 183 1070
Intel i5 9600K 6 3.7 200 1068
Intel i5 9600KF 6 3.7 200 1068
Intel i7 8750H 6 2.2 180 1063
Intel i5 9600 6 3.1 186 1042
Intel i5 8600K 6 3.6 183 1040
Intel i7 8850H 6 2.6 182 1023
Intel i5 9500F 6 3 182 1016
Intel i5 9500 6 3 182 1016
Intel Xeon Silver 4108 8 1.8 130 1014
Intel i7 7700K 4 4.2 191 996
Intel i5 9400 6 2. 9 177 987
Intel i5 9400F 6 2.9 177 987
Intel i7 7740X 4 4.3 196 986
Intel i5 8400 6 2.8 161 966
Intel i5 8600 6 3.1 178 959
Intel i5 8500 6 3 174 934
Intel i5 9600T 6 2.3 159 908
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 4 3.6 156 826
Intel i5 8400H 4 2.5 178 819
Intel i5 9500T 6 2.2 155 811
Intel XEON W-2123 4 3.6 167 806
AMD Ryzen 5 1500X 4 3.5 152 803
AMD Ryzen 3750H 4 2.3 161 802
Intel i5 8300H 4 2. 3 169 795
AMD Ryzen 5 1400 4 3.2 134 787
AMD Ryzen 5 3550H 4 2.1 142 733
Intel i5 9400T 6 1.8 150 710
Intel i5 7600K 4 3.8 176 701
AMD Ryzen 7 3700U 4 2.3 146 701
Intel Xeon Silver 4112 4 2.6 131 665
AMD Ryzen 7 2700U 4 2.2 138 662
AMD Ryzen 5 3500U 4 2.1 138 620
Intel i7 8650U 4 1.9 175 614
AMD Ryzen 5 2500U 4 2 130 584
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G 4 3.5 142 576
Intel i7 8565U 4 1.8 178 564
Intel i7 8550U 4 1. 8 167 564
Intel i5 8265U 4 1.6 171 549
Intel i5 8250U 4 1.6 157 549
Intel XEON W-2104 4 3.2 137 531
AMD Ryzen 3 3300U 4 2.1 139 510
Intel XEON W-2102 4 2.9 124 485
AMD Ryzen 3 2300U 4 2 134 480
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 4 3.45 139 478
AMD Athlon 200GE 2 3.2 125 357
AMD Athlon 300U 2 2.6 138 344
AMD Ryzen 3 3200U 2 2.6 138 344
AMD Ryzen 3 2200U 2 2.5 129 318

Taking what we explained in the last section, you should be able to use this table to make a more informed decision on your next CPU purchase. Furthermore, you’ll be able to use this as a benchmark for your own CPU tests – making sure your CPU isn’t underperforming.

We touched on this earlier (briefly), but for those that aren’t familiar with the difference between single-core and multi-core performance, let’s discuss it a little further.

Whether you’re looking to do some light gaming or heavy rendering, understanding what is required from your CPU is an extremely important step towards your next upgrade. There is a very clear difference between great gaming CPUs and great “work task” CPUs.

Ultimately, the answer is quite simple. If you’re looking for a new gaming CPU, get one with high single-core performance. Alternatively, if you want a CPU for heavy workflow scenarios, opt for a newer CPU with high multi-core performance.

Single-core performance refers to how one of the cores (that make up your CPU) performs on its own. Cinebench will push this core to its limit to see how it handles the scenario. A decent score for single-core performance is around 170+.

What Is A Good Cinebench Score For Gaming?

When we think of a gaming CPU, we usually think of one that provides high single-core performance. That’s because a lot of games haven’t been optimized to make use of numerous cores. The single-core performance of your CPU should be one of the most important areas of consideration when thinking of building a gaming rig. Having said that, the GPU is still the number one component in driving frame rates.

As we move forward to the 21st century, games are now being designed to make use of more cores. Games such as Witcher 3 can now make use of numerous cores, meaning multi-core CPUs are becoming much more desirable.

Ensuring your CPU and GPU work in harmony is the next thing to consider. What I mean by that is, you can’t pair a low scoring CPU and the best scoring GPU because your GPU will simply be bottlenecked by the processor. Making sure your CPU and GPU are evenly matched will ensure the best overall gaming performance.

AMD Vs. Intel

One of the big questions surrounding the CPU industry at the moment is whether we should go AMD or Intel – a question that was much easier to answer just 12 months ago. Thanks to AMD, though, the gap between the two giants has now become much, much closer.

As you can see from the chart above, Intel still pretty much dominates the single-core performance benchmarks and have done for the past 10+ years. AMD has been edging closer over the last few years, especially with their impressive range of Ryzen CPUs, but still fall slightly short of Intel in this department. Where AMD excels, however, is in the multi-core performance benchmarking.

AMD has always been renowned for its high multi-core performance – something that doesn’t look likely to slow down any time soon. Their latest arrivals which include Ryzen 9 3900X and 3950X, currently showcase some of the best consumer-grade performance levels of any CPU available today.

Final Thoughts

So, there you have it, our full rundown of Cinebench R15, and how the scores can affect your next purchase. Hopefully, this article has made understanding the software a little bit easier.

Ultimately, Cinebench scores are something that should be considered but not relied on. Depending on what you’re doing with your PC, you might find the Cinebench score to be a little irrelevant. Make sure to understand your needs first, then do proper research on what your system needs before purchasing your upgrade.

Anyway, leave us a comment if you have any further questions on the matter. We also have our Community Hub where you can discuss similar topics with like-minded people!

WePC is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

ADAC 2022: Summer tire test in size 185/65 R15

Source: ADAC

A group of experts from the German automobile club ADAC conducted a large comparison test of summer tires, while covering the 2022 models relevant for the local market. A total of 34 kits were tested, 16 of which were designed for small cars (tyres size 185/65 R15 88H), and the remaining 18 for medium-sized passenger vehicles and subcompact crossovers (215/60 R16 99V).

In this article we will look at the results of 185/65 R15 tires suitable for a number of small cars like the Audi A1 and the Vokswagen Polo used as a carrier. In general, the results of the participants pleased the testers, but it would not be superfluous to get acquainted with the shortcomings found in them. nine0003

Tires with an H speed rating are designed for decent speeds (up to 210 km/h), so they must have the most reliable grip on dry and wet road surfaces. Well, which of the 185/65 R15 summer tires will provide high driving safety, ADAC testers give their answer in the 2022 test.

List of tested summer tires:

  • Vredestein Ultrac
  • Semperit Speed-Life 3
  • Pirelli Cinturato P1 Verde
  • Michelin Primacy 4
  • Matador MP47 Hectorra 3
  • Laufenn G Fit EQ+
  • Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2
  • Giti GitiSynergy h3
  • Fulda EcoControl HP 2
  • Firestone Roadhawk
  • Falken Sincera SN110 Ecorun
  • Dunlop Sport BlueResponse
  • Cooper CS7
  • Continental EcoContact 6
  • Bridgestone Turanza T005
  • BF Goodrich Advantage

ADAC 2022 test results

Good overall result: none of the 16 test candidates showed any serious shortcomings in the main criteria for safety on dry and wet pavement, as well as in tests for noise level, energy efficiency and wear resistance. Six models were classified as highly recommended («Good» verdict) and another ten as recommended («Satisfactory» verdict).

However, it is worth looking at the details, because even among the six «good» models there are significant differences in terms of behavior under certain conditions. And the differentiation becomes even clearer when comparing their scores to detailed ratings of “fair” tyres, which generally score lower overall due to identified shortcomings. But if you can put up with the individual weaknesses of the models that best suit your driving style, then the 2022 ADAC test results will help you find relatively inexpensive options to operate. nine0003 Summary table of results. Summer tire test 185/65 R15, ADAC, 2022 (click to enlarge)

Leader group: Excellent balance of performance the highest mileage in the test. They took first place with a minimum margin from the closest pursuers.

The Pirelli Cinturato P1 Verde (2.3 points) and Bridgestone Turanza T005 (2. 1 points) tires were developed with a focus on dry and wet performance, the German experts noted, while their wear resistance was also satisfactory. high level, like the test-winning model. nine0003 Pirelli Cinturato P1 Verde

The Michelin Primacy 4 tires (2.1 points) were noted for their performance balance. They did not receive the highest scores for any of the main safety criteria in the test, but they showed quite good properties on both dry and wet pavement. They also performed well in the wear resistance test. At the same time, in 2022, the French tire manufacturers released an updated version of the model — Michelin Primacy 4+, which surpasses the basic modification in grip properties on wet surfaces, especially at the wear limit. Perhaps in future comparative tests, she will be able to improve the performance of tires without a plus in the name. nine0003

Dunlop Sport BluResponse and Giti GitiSynergy h3 performed well in wet and dry conditions and in terms of wear. They shared fifth place with 2. 5 points each.

Giti GitiSynergy h3

Devaluation of the overall score due to dry grip

Four out of ten «satisfactory» models — Laufenn G Fit EQ + (2.6 points), Continental EcoContact 6 (2.8 points), Firestone Roadhawk ( 2.8 points) and Semperit Speed-Life 3 (3.0 points) — the testers found some similarities. The designated tires have impressive performance on dry roads, but on wet pavement they have minor flaws, which have led to a devaluation of their overall ratings. nine0003

Some of these tires are cheaper second-line products from premium manufacturers: Hankook owns Laufenn, Bridgestone owns Firestone, and Continental owns Semperit.

Laufenn G Fit EQ+

But the Continental EcoContact 6 is the “premium” model in this laggard group, says a Shina Guide technician. Its shortcomings were obvious even at the launch stage, and the manufacturer tried in every possible way to raise sales through marketing. At the same time, the EC6 is the only summer tire in the ADAC 2022 test that was able to get very good marks for environmental friendliness and economy. Despite the smallest tread depth in new condition, they impress with their mileage. In terms of fuel consumption, the Continental EcoContact 6 is also ahead of many rivals, but it obviously lives up to its name more in terms of «Eco» than in terms of «Contact». nine0003

Individually flawed tires

BFGoodrich Advantage tires (a subsidiary of Michelin), with a total score of 3.0, showed weaknesses in both dry and wet tests, resulting in a devaluation of the overall score. The

BFGoodrich Advantage

Falken Sincera SN110 Ecorun and Vredestein Ultrac (Apollo Tires tires) also scored only 3.0 in the overall rating and received a «Fair» verdict from the ADAC testers due to their poor wear resistance. But the Ultrac, in particular, performs well in dry and wet road conditions, so it could be a good option to equip a second family car, for example. nine0003

The three remaining models showed deficiencies in both dry and wet conditions. But at the same time, the Fulda EcoControl HP2 tires (3. 1 points, products of one of the Goodyear subbrands) were able to show positively due to high mileage, while the Cooper CS7 (3.2 points) in terms of wear resistance showed only satisfactory result.

Falken Sincera SN110 Ecorun

Slovak tires Matador MP47 Hectorra 3 (3.3 points), developed by Continental, have the greatest weakness on dry surfaces. nine0003


This is another test that shows how much you have to read between the lines when choosing tires, and also how important it is to know your own driving style and individual tire requirements. Because only then can you find the tires that best suit you in terms of features and asking price.

Similar news:

Summer tire test 185/65 R15 (ADAC 2022)

The German automobile club ADAC has been reviewing summer tires for several years. This time the testers used tires in the popular passenger car size 185/65 R15. With the summer season getting closer, drivers should know the capabilities of individual models in different conditions and rely on proven solutions. nine0003

ADAC is an organization of over 17 million car fans. Their independent rating is highly valued by drivers, and tire manufacturers work hard to ensure that their model wins the test. A high position in the ranking confirms great potential, so the companies are pleased to note that their rubber has been tested by ADAC.

Conditions of assessments in the test of summer tires 185 65 15

For testing summer tires this year in size 185/65 R15 16 models from different price categories were selected. The rating includes both premium-class tires and models of the middle price category, as well as budget products. This size is installed in cars with a compact body, such as the Audi A1 or the Volkswagen Polo. Models with speed index H were tested — up to 210 km / h. nine0003

The tires have been tested and assigned weights that determine their share in the final score: dry performance (20% of the score) and wet performance (40%), comfort and noise (10%), fuel economy (10%), and resistance to consumption (20%). The tests took place at the famous Kontidrom training ground. After testing and calculating the weighted average, the final marks were given in accordance with the following key:

  • 0.6-1.5 — very good
  • nine0013 1.6-2.5 — good

  • 2.6-3.5 — satisfactory
  • 3.6-4.5 — enough
  • Above 4.6 — insufficient

nine0119 2.5


nine0119 3.0

nine0119 1.0

Goodyear Efficient Grip Performance 2


C/A/69 2.3 2.0 3.2 2.2 1.0 2.0
Bridgestone Turanza T005


B/A/70 1.8 1.7 3.3 1.9 2.5 2.1
Michelin Primacy 4



1. 8 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.0 2.1
Pirelli Cinturato P1 Verde



1.6 2.3 3.2 2.1 2.3
Dunlop Sport BluResponse



2.0 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.5 2.5
Giti GitiSynergy h3



2.4 2.3 3.2 2.4 2.5 2.5
Laufenn G Fit EQ



2.4 2.6 3.0 1.8 2. 5 2.6
Continental EcoContact 6



2.5 2.8 2.9 1.2 1.5 2.8
Firestone Roadhawk


C/A/70 2.2 2.8


2.4 2.0 2.8
BF Goodrich Advantage


nine0002 C/B/69

2.9 3.0 3.2 2.1 2.5 3.0
Falken Sincera SN110



1.9 2.6 2.7 1.7 3.0
Semperit Speed-Life 3



2. 4 3.0 2.9 1.9 2.0 3.0
Vredestein Ultrac nine0002 78

C/A/69 1.8 2.1 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0
Fulda EcoControl HP 2


E/C/69 2.7 3.1 3.2 2.2 3.1
Cooper CS7



3.2 3.2 3.0 1.9 3.0 3.2
Matador MP47 Hectorra 3 nine0002 76

C/B/70 3.3 2.7 2.8 2.0 2.5 3.3

The Goodyear EfficientGrip Performance 2 (2. 0) is the winner of the 185/65 R15 summer tire rating. This model is designed for drivers who, in addition to performance in all conditions, also expect high tread strength. In terms of fuel economy, he is the undisputed leader — in this category, he scored 1.0 points. The tire performs well in both dry and wet conditions. A good result was also achieved in terms of fuel economy. The model is one of the most expensive in the ranking, but tires of comparable cost can be found even in the middle of the ranking. nine0003

Perfect safety in summer weather

For drivers looking for durability, traction and short braking distances on wet and dry roads, one of the runner-up models is the best choice. These are Bridgestone Turanza T005 and Michelin Primacy 4. Both tires completed the tests with a final score of 2.1. On dry pavement, both scored 1.8 points, which was the second result in this competition.

On the other hand, in wet handling the Bridgestone tire is unquestionably the leader. Her rating of 1.7 was unbeatable. Bridgestone’s tread wear was worse than Michelin’s (from 2.5 to 2.0). However, it offers better fuel efficiency (from 1.9up to 2.1). It is also worth noting that the Michelin Primacy 4 is the most expensive model that took part in the test.

High grip and low fuel consumption

The Pirelli Cinturato P1 Verde finished fourth in the test. The rubber is the leader in dry handling and finished the competition with a score of 1.6. Her overall score is reduced due to her wet behavior, but the 2.3 still gives her a «good» rating. Pirelli wears at the same rate as Bridgestone, with a score of 2.5 in this competition. nine0003

Fifth place went to Dunlop Sport BluResponse and Giti GitiSynergy h3 with a combined score of 2.5. Both models performed well in both dry and wet conditions. They are also the last two models to receive a «good» rating in both categories. The Giti tires were the worst in the entire ranking in terms of fuel efficiency. However, her final score of 2.4 is in the «good» range.

Profitable budget and «sturdy» premium class

Models with an overall rating of «satisfactory» are already in seventh position. These are models that, compared to tires from higher places, lost mainly on wet surfaces. Laufenn G Fit EQ LK41+ from seventh place is a proposal that certainly deserves attention. The tires grip well on dry roads, have low rolling resistance and are affordable. nine0003

Eighth place belongs to the Continental EcoContact 6 and Firestone Roadhawk. These are models that perform well on dry pavement, but have a lower score due to their performance on wet pavement. Continental pulled up a bit in terms of abrasion resistance — 1.5 — one of the best results. With fuel consumption, things were even better — 1.2 — an unsurpassed result. The Firestone performed well in these parameters, but its driving comfort score of 3.7 was the weakest result among the tested models. nine0003

Four models finished in tenth position with a score of 3. 0: BFGoodrich Advantage, Falken SN110, Semperit Speed-Life 3 and Vredestein Ultrac. The BFGoodrich is the first tire to be rated «satisfactory» on a dry road. The remaining three models were able to receive a «good» rating. Vredestein managed to achieve good results on wet pavement as well. Vredestein and Falken did not perform well in terms of durability.

Fourteenth place was taken by Fulda EcoControl HP 2 tire. Both this model and the two behind it performed poorly on either wet or dry pavement. Their behavior on the road was rated as satisfactory. The undeniable advantage of Fulda is its high abrasion resistance. nine0003

Cooper CS7 came in fifteenth place. Admittedly, although its results are only sufficient, they are still very balanced — 3.2 in the wet and dry. Tires lost points due to rapid wear — 3.0.

The Matador MP47 Hectorra 3 closes the list. The model performed better on wet roads than on dry ones (from 2.7 to 3.3). However, so far these are only satisfactory results.