CREE XM-L VS MC-E

led2011

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
26
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? :)
 

mux

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
27
Location
Netherlands
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.
 

AaronM

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
315
Location
New London, WI
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...
L2rf1.jpg

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.
 

bshanahan14rulz

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
2,819
Location
Tennessee
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
MCE4WT-A2-0000-000M01.jpg
 

deadrx7conv

Enlightened
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
621
Location
USA
XM-L can produce more light at any given watt.

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

deadrx7conv

Enlightened
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
621
Location
USA
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:
MC-E-3-LEDs.jpg




XML-EZW:
30s8xuv.jpg


Xlamp_XM-L_ezw_180.jpg




XML:
287060-Cree_XLamp_XM_L_LEDs.jpg



others for comparison:
xpdiecompare.jpg





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:

Pöbel

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
372
Location
Germany
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.
 
Top