Cree XP-L, XM-L performance in an XP size package

200 lpw, 1079lm @ 10 watts 85C. Impresses me.

http://www.cree.com/News-and-Events/Cree-News/Press-Releases/2014/May/XPL-intro

http://www.cree.com/LED-Components-and-Modules/Products/XLamp/Discrete-Directional/XLamp-XPL

Oooooh, pretty. Can't wait to see what it turns up in.

I wonder how's the tint going to be like....

Hot Damn... This looks like the XB-H, but in the standard XP Package. According to Mouser here is the price for these as well
Part number:
[h=1]XPLAWT-00-0000-0000V4051[/h]

Nice, I think it's time to build a new light

Checking the datasheet, I'm reading 150+ lm/W for the cool white, highest output bin. More if you can keep the LED cool. Those are some amazing numbers for a LED this size & at those output levels... oo:

Looking at the spectrum graph, I'd hesitate to use this for general lighting purposes. But for flashlights: PERFECT!

With this as a drop-in for XP-G(2), I'm wondering what Cree comes up with as XM-L(2) drop-in... Looks like this might be the new "gold standard" where XP-G2's were used before.

RetroTechie said:

Checking the datasheet, I'm reading 150+ lm/W for the cool white, highest output bin. More if you can keep the LED cool. Those are some amazing numbers for a LED this size & at those output levels... oo:

Looking at the spectrum graph, I'd hesitate to use this for general lighting purposes. But for flashlights: PERFECT!

With this as a drop-in for XP-G(2), I'm wondering what Cree comes up with as XM-L(2) drop-in... Looks like this might be the new "gold standard" where XP-G2's were used before.

Click to expand...

I like your thinking! :twothumbs"

And the heatsinks get smaller again.

I notice that CRI's only get over 80 in the warm white zone... neutrals top out at Min. 80 and cool whites will just be "standard".

This is a potential game changer for XP based lights. Very similar, but slightly lower Vf curve.

3.0A support - bring on a Vinh modded V10R!

Much better thermal performance - 2.5*C/W (same as the XML2) versus 4*C/W.

Same viewing angle as the original XP-G. 125* versus 115* for the XP-G2. There was some disagreement when the XP-G2 came out of whether or not a wider viewing angle or narrower viewing angle produced more light into the spot of the beam - I will not argue that point here.

The tint CRI binning is right in line with the current suite of available LEDs so it doesn't bother me.

Holy Lumens though.

@~1A a R5 binned XP-G2 will push out 347 lumens.
@1050mA a V4 binned XP-L will push 440 lumens. A gain of 26.8%. That is pretty huge compared to the normal 7% binning gains we see.

RetroTechie said:

Checking the datasheet, I'm reading 150+ lm/W for the cool white, highest output bin. More if you can keep the LED cool. Those are some amazing numbers for a LED this size & at those output levels... oo:

Looking at the spectrum graph, I'd hesitate to use this for general lighting purposes. But for flashlights: PERFECT!

With this as a drop-in for XP-G(2), I'm wondering what Cree comes up with as XM-L(2) drop-in... Looks like this might be the new "gold standard" where XP-G2's were used before.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure this is using an XM-L2 size die, not XP-G2 size. Nothing new here really, just a smaller package and slightly lower cost.

monkeyboy said:

Pretty sure this is using an XM-L2 size die, not XP-G2 size. Nothing new here really, just a smaller package and slightly lower cost.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting point. I am looking through the documentation and I cannot find an exact spec for the die size but Cree's diagrams do show a larger die on the XP-L. The documentation does specify it as the replacement for the XM-L line of LEDs.

Now just because of that I wouldn't dismiss this LED the way you have. It is still over 25% brighter than a XP-G2 in the same package. It will really require waiting until some XP-G2 lights are swapped with this new LED using XP-G based reflectors that we will see where things stand. I would expect a little bit floodier, but still probably brighter in the spot - but not as bad as a XM-L based reflector would be. Also the fact you can safely drive it up to 3 Amps is pretty cool.

My real question - will the lens be small enough to fit into the Carlco XP based triple optics? Imagine a 9Amp triple in something the size of a Tri-EDC.

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:

It is still over 25% brighter than a XP-G2 in the same package. It will really require waiting until some XP-G2 lights are swapped with this new LED using XP-G based reflectors that we will see where things stand. I would expect a little bit floodier, but still probably brighter in the spot - but not as bad as a XM-L based reflector would be.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the datasheet indicates even a bit higher lumens output than XM-L2 highest output bins. So "XM-L2 performance (and then some), in an XP-G(2) size package" seems like best description for the time being. One thing seems certain: it's not a drop-in fit for XM-L(2) footprints, so upgrading eg. XM-L based lights would probably involve a swap of the LED board, not just the emitter. And possibly reflector too, if an exact beam profile is to be maintained.

Of course we'll need to see some actual lights built using this (or emitter swap), and see how datasheet specs hold up in real life.

Cutter has the cooler tint bin available right now, but I love my neutrals so I'll be holding out another few weeks/months until the 4000K tint becomes available. At that time I will upgrade a few XP-G/XP-G2 lights and try to take comparison beamshots of the process. My hope is that the increase in brightness will outweigh the increase in floodiness of the larger die.

Lights I plan to test upgrades on are: LF2XT, V10R, HDS Clicky. My goto selection of lights.

The naming convention would suggest the larger die.
e.g.
XR-C, XP-C = ~0.5mm^2
XR-E, XP-E, XP-E2 = ~1mm^2
XP-G, XP-G2 = ~2mm^2
XM-L, XM-L2, XP-L? = ~4mm^2

I think the XP-L must be using the same die as the XM-L2, as the specifications are too close. The XP-L has a few very minor differences in typical values including slightly more lumens at 10W but this could be due to the binning document being published at a later date where small improvements have been made to the fabrication process.

User "welight" on a different forum, reports that these don't fit XP optics (e.g. Carclo). I infer from this that the dome is a bit bigger than XP-G2. Not really an XP- replacement then.

we have tried them under Carclo and Ledil triples, no joy,Primary dome too large, not bad with a Regina Reflector but no hot spot. Works ok on a Triple 32mm board with CUTE optic but again no super spot, Will be trying with Khatod PL1672 but its a 35mm single optic but lovely thrower for XPG-2 or XML-2 so Im thinking this will be a nice match
Cheers
Mark

Mark - Thanks for that information. I was afraid of that due to the bigger lens. Even going from XP-G to XP-G2 I had some issues with regular reflectors because of the greater dome size on the lens.

Have you had a chance to upgrade any XP-G2 based lights that use a more standard reflector rather than an optic? I'd be interested in hearing your experiences.

Me also.

One thing of interest: the dome looks as if it were actually too big for the footprint, and "trimmed" to fit, resulting in flat faces on four sides. Because of the physics involved, as dedoming aficionados know, that's going to alter the quality of the light coming out of the sides. The first folks to get these into existing reflector setups, especially smooth and mild OP ones, are going to find out that their hotspots are different somehow - possibly XB-D like in their color pattern.

Can't wait for the first beamshots to see whether I'm right.

I haven't been keeping up with the latest stuff, or even the not-so-latest.... so I'm a bit amazed that they can put 10 watts through this little package and not cook it!

Does anyone sell stars for use with this package? I can't imagine a hobbyist making their own board that could get the heat out of this package.

It's the same physical footprint as the XP-G/E/C, so just using their stars.
Which as you say, raises my biggest concern; how are you supposed to get XM-L2 heat out of a thermal pad 1.3mm x 3.3mm, compared to the XM-L2's 2.78mm x 4.78mm?? Sounds to me like direct-to-copper or it'll be toast, seems like a major bottleneck