Olight
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

  1. #1

    Default CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    I need some compare between cree xm-l and mc-e. Somebody says that xm-l will replace mc-e because xm-l have more advantage than mc-e. Can somebody in the forum give me more statisitic information to support that idea in the theoretical way?

  2. #2
    Enlightened
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    27

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    There's nothing statistical or theoretical to discuss - XM-L puts out more light for way less money, on a much smaller footprint. Simple as that.

  3. #3
    Flashaholic AaronM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New London, WI
    Posts
    312

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    I'm no math wiz, but here's what I got out of staring at the Cree data sheets for a while:

    MC-E:
    2.8A x 3.4V = 9.52W
    740LM at this drive level
    740/9.52 = 77.7LM/W

    XM-L:
    3A x 3.4V = 10.05W
    910LM at this drive level
    910/10.05 = 90.54LM/W

    That said, I still really like MC-Es. If you want to mod a light that has a Lux-V in it, an MC-E starts to look pretty good due to wiring flexibility. Also, if you directly reflow solder it to a chunk of copper...

    the efficiency at higher current will be better than the data sheet might suggest.
    The XM-L doesn't look like it would take very well to DR-C (direct re-flow to copper) as the package has no easy to reach leads.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* bshanahan14rulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,792

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    I will admit beforehand that this is a stupid reason to pick an LED, but I think that the MC-E has a unique, artfully technical look to it. When you look at it close up, it is a bunch of wire bonds, gold plated traces, and beautiful conformally coated Cree dice. However, I can't really think of another reason to pick the MC-E. Maybe if you needed the RGBW package...
    This I found via google, in DimeRazorBack's photobucket, so thanks for the pic, DRB

  5. #5
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    621

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    XM-L can produce more light at any given watt.

    MC-E has the advantage of multiple wiring choices: series, parallel, or 2s2p

  6. #6
    Flashaholic* znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    915

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    Quote Originally Posted by deadrx7conv View Post
    XM-L can produce more light at any given watt.

    MC-E has the advantage of multiple wiring choices: series, parallel, or 2s2p
    EZ-white XML has those wiring choices too.

  7. #7
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    621

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    The XML and XMLEZW are two completely different LEDs, one available in 3v only, and the other in 6v and 12v. One is a single big die and the other has 4 separate dies just like the MC-E.

    Whats cool about the MC-E is it offers options rarely talked about. You can have 2 warm and 2 cool white dies. You can have RGBW or RGBWW or RGBNW.... I haven't seen the XMLEZ offered with those choices(yet).

    MC-E:




    XML-EZW:






    XML:



    others for comparison:





    Look how the XPC has grown into an XPE has grown into an XPG has grown into an XML. Both the MC-E and XMLEZW have a quad-XPE look to them. Now what I'm waiting for is a quad-XPG or quad XML in an MC-E package/coloring/wiring choices.
    Last edited by deadrx7conv; 12-15-2011 at 10:12 AM.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* bshanahan14rulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,792

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    XML does not have those wiring choices. They are wired either 2s2p or all in series, and the dice cannot be individually addressed. They do come in 90 CRI, though only up to 3000K.

    http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXM-L_EZW.pdf

    e
    dit: yeah, what he said ^

  9. #9
    Moderator Kestrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Willamette Valley, OR
    Posts
    4,799

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    So would the 6v XM-L EZW be a more up-to-date choice for the usual LuxV --> MC-E (2s2p) upgrade?
    In the past we have had a light which flickered, in the present we have a light which flames, and in the future there will be a light which shines over all the land and sea.
    - Winston Churchill

  10. #10
    Flashaholic AaronM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New London, WI
    Posts
    312

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    I'm an MC-E diehard when it comes to L4 and L2 Surefires...
    Even so, I'm temped to try one.

  11. #11
    Flashaholic* znomit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    915

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    Quote Originally Posted by deadrx7conv View Post
    The XML and XMLEZW are two completely different LEDs, one available in 3v only, and the other in 6v and 12v. One is a single big die and the other has 4 separate dies just like the MC-E.
    Cree really need to find a catchy name for the single die XML.
    Heres another, 46V XML
    http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXM-L_HVW.pdf

  12. #12
    Flashaholic Pöbel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    287

    Default Re: CREE XM-L VS MC-E

    Quote Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
    I'm no math wiz, but here's what I got out of staring at the Cree data sheets for a while:

    MC-E:
    2.8A x 3.4V = 9.52W
    740LM at this drive level
    740/9.52 = 77.7LM/W

    XM-L:
    3A x 3.4V = 10.05W
    910LM at this drive level
    910/10.05 = 90.54LM/W

    That said, I still really like MC-Es. If you want to mod a light that has a Lux-V in it, an MC-E starts to look pretty good due to wiring flexibility. Also, if you directly reflow solder it to a chunk of copper...

    the efficiency at higher current will be better than the data sheet might suggest.
    The XM-L doesn't look like it would take very well to DR-C (direct re-flow to copper) as the package has no easy to reach leads.
    There is also the N-Bin MC-E which gets much closer to the XM-L (T6) efficiency wise.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •