Cree's new XLamp XP-E2 Torch LED

matt304

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
183
Here it is. Cree's new "XLamp XP-E2 Torch" LED.

Specs per Cree;

Cree XLamp XP-E2 Torch specifications:


Size (mm x mm)3.45 x 3.45
Maximum drive current (A)1.5
Maximum power (W)3.5
Lumen range360 – 456
Typical forward voltage @ 1.05 A (V)3.5
Viewing angle (degrees)125
BinningTorch
Thermal resistance (°C/W) - White9
Reflow-solderableYes – JEDEC J-STD-020C-compatible
RoHS and REACH-compliantYes


Standard Cree XLamp XP-E2 specifications:

Size (mm x mm)3.45 x 3.45
Product optionsWhite, Color
Maximum drive current (A) - White1
Maximum power (W) - White3
Light output - WhiteUp to 283 lm @ 3 W, 85°C
Typical forward voltage
@ 0.35 A (V) 85°C - White
2.9
Viewing angle (degrees) - White110
Binning - White85°C, ANSI
Thermal resistance (°C/W) - White9
Reflow-solderableYes – JEDEC J-STD-020C-compatible
RoHS and REACH-compliantYes
UL-recognized componentYes – Level 4 Enclosure Consideration


Viewing angle change to 125°. Maybe different dome. Have to get a hold of one to find out.

I noticed they used the same photo for E2/E2 Torch. Does anyone know what the increase is actually coming from when compared against the standard XP-E2, besides the specifications change?

The change is something but appears to be a very high bin of the same design. It's a new LED listing now rated at 89% the lumen output of the XP-G2, where before it was rated at 55% the lumen output of the XP-G2. The total gap in surface area between E2 and G2 die is much larger than 11%! I'm starting to draw conclusions now... :)
 
Last edited:

MichaelW

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
1,788
Location
USA
Doesn't seem to be anything more than an xp-e2 that has been given the official go-ahead to run at 1.5x previous maximum drive current. Makes sense that the output would be 88.5% of the xp-g2, instead of only 55%.
More interesting is the xq-e torch, which seems to be the xp-c die in xq-e package. See the thermal resistance spec on that one.
And the xb-h, which is the 'new' xp-g2. Just like the xp-l is the 'new' xm-l2.
The XHP50 is the 'new' mk-r.
The XHP70 is the new mt-g (maybe?)
 

otis311

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
55
Location
MA
From Cree's website:
"Rated at a higher maximum current than the XP-E LED, with simplified color binning that is optimized for portable-lighting applications, the XLamp XP-E2 Torch LED is designed for a wide range of mainstream portable-lighting applications. The XP-E2 Torch LED delivers 20% higher lumen output than the XLamp XP-E LED in the same XP footprint."
 

matt304

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
183
First is the obvious I hinted at, viewing angle change from 110° to 125°. It's not just a bin change, apparently.
 

martinaee

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
1,495
Location
Ohio
Really cool honestly. If they can really get 400 lumens from it it would make for some really interesting tiny throwers. I'd like to see another E40 with this led.
 

matt304

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
183
Really cool honestly. If they can really get 400 lumens from it it would make for some really interesting tiny throwers. I'd like to see another E40 with this led.

I don't think Cree would bin it at 450+ if they weren't getting over 400 lumens. Seems like we might have the first batch of their next generation XP manufacturing process appearing. Makes sense, limited initial production of materials, so they cut the wafers smaller to get more LEDs made. AKA, using the XP-E size die. Then an XP-G2 Torch, etc. It's like computer chips.

Also, if your product has a required lifetime standard of 50,000 hours, I don't believe that they would just up the drive current specs and call it the Torch, without adhering to those lifetime standards they have developed through testing. It's not like it's a small company that is using cheap lux meters in their test garage to get their lifetime-standard data acquisition. :D
 

MichaelW

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
1,788
Location
USA
Seems to have the limitations of the xp-e & xp-e2.
If you increase the drive from 500mA to 1500mA you are only doubling your output, yet power consumption goes up almost 3.3x; and a doubling of output is minimally noticeable. That would make a good hold for burst mode UI that Fenix is doing.
 

martinaee

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
1,495
Location
Ohio
It would make for a really good new E35 then (the 1 18650 xp-e light). Small tiny thrower with 400 lumens? Heck yeah. Most of the powerful xm-l 1 18650 lights have to have 800-1000 lumens of flood to get any distance. I have a Bushnell light with an xp-e2 and it's crazy how concentrated the beam is with a pretty small reflector. Get it up to 450 lumens and I will buy one for sure.
 

matt304

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
183
An XM-L is just an orange in this discussion. Hehe. I mean, there's no comparison of how poor an XM-L size die performs in small lights when you put "throw" or "distance" in the same sentence. XM-L die is a 50mm+ host head diameter optimal LED. Are they efficient? Yeah. But that's not the overall goal when using an XP-E size die, anyways.

I personally would rather install this into a focusable host with one of my own double-lens systems. Flood in a very smooth circular pattern if needed, and throw to maximum optical-limited range if needed. It's only my thoughts, but I would rather have control of my light's divergence for all instances I arrive in, not be bound to one set beam output by a reflector when an LED is a directional light source. Reflectors were for omni-directional light sources and I think I'll always look at them like that having said that.

These Torchs are going to be low-CRI however, so far there is only a cool white version. So a de-dome just makes sense; drop the kelvin-temp to help rid some of the blue-shifted light pattern. A U5 bin (maximum listed bin as of now), is 360 lumens at 1.05A, and 456 lumen at 1.50A, respectively.

Pushed at 3A on a copper sink in a medium-size host for cooling might push a U5 bin above 550 lumens. Cree just keeps mixing data up though, I mean they aren't using their "85°C new testing standard" they advertised so much about, they've went back to the old 25°C rating here. When you think about it, the portable light is the obvious one which would be more likely to hit higher temps at the emitter, IMO. You can't always integrate fan/liquid cooling systems into "portable lights" like you can with dedicated, permanent luminaire setups.

Dear Cree,

You are confusing people with your 85/25° data. Stick with one, or the other.
 
Top