# New XR-E has smaller die?



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 22, 2009)

I just got two LEDs from a chinese distributer. They were both marketed as R2 (have my doubts about both) but they look different. Both are the silver-backed versions, both have same tint (according to seller), same color phosphor, both are the xr-e die with the three bars and 4 bondwires, same metalic-looking substrate that is more rectangular. Difference? die size. One's die was almost as wide as the substrate in one dimension, while the other die had a smaller area and left a copper-colored square on the substrate that would be covered up had a normal sized die been used. 

Has anybody else noticed this on your LEDs? (easy way to tell: look for copper square around die) Anybody have any insight into which of my LEDs, if either, is the R2? the smaller one seems brighter, but I think it throws a smaller spot..


----------



## Illum (Jun 22, 2009)

The only LED I know that has the exact same external appearance to the XR-E is the XR-C [see different between an XR-E and an XR-C ]
But I don't recall anything copper related

if not, no...I have not heard of it:candle:


----------



## ergotelis (Jun 22, 2009)

If only you can post some photos!


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 22, 2009)

I will have to remember to bring these in for picture taking. for the moment, all I can do is photochop. So these are photochopped versions just to give you an idea of what I'm noticing. They are not xr-c because the die has same pattern as xr-e, just smaller. xr-c only has 2 bars in the middle, xr-e has 3.

Credits to Illum for image from pictorial review of LEDs thread that I photochopped. (lol just noticed you posted in my thread too! :wave
These pictures are pretty accurate representations of what my LEDs look like. And I lied, I MSPainted, not photochopped. sue me. Anyways, the copper-colored metal is the same as the silver piece, just looks like copper, almost like it was plated silver but they left some space for the die or something. Also note that the outer inverted-U shape on the die is present on both dies. the dies look exactly the same, just one is smaller. And it might just be my eyes can't see that small, but I could swear that the + sign left of the die on the silver thing is a square on mine.

Larger Die






Smaller Die (MSPainted)


----------



## taschenlampe (Jun 22, 2009)

Looking at the bonding wires I would denote this picture is a fake ...

tl


----------



## ergotelis (Jun 22, 2009)

he said photochop... he took a picture,cut the core of the led,made it smaller to tell the difference, not the original photos of course..But we still do need the original ones!


----------



## mds82 (Jun 22, 2009)

post both pictures side by side. the 2 pics you posted also are taken from different angles so its hard to see


----------



## phantom23 (Jun 22, 2009)

http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=9033
http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=8324
Second pictures in both links - orange edging is clearly visible.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 22, 2009)

Good pictures, thanks for the link, phantom. Yes, my LED looks like that. My other LED the chip seems to be closer to the long edge of the substrate. I'll have to bring them into work tomorrow to take pics w/ friend's camera phone. Any factual evidence or even speculative ideas as to which is the real R2 or if they both are, or why cree would do this?

Edit: btw, yes, the two pictures I posted are from the same angle. and yes, they are the same picture, but "photoshopped" to show what I was talking about.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 22, 2009)

phantom23 said:


> http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=9033
> http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=8324
> Second pictures in both links - orange edging is clearly visible.


Good job catching that.





bshanahan14rulz said:


> Good pictures, thanks for the link, phantom. Yes, my LED looks like that. My other LED the chip seems to be closer to the long edge of the substrate. I'll have to bring them into work tomorrow to take pics w/ friend's camera phone. Any factual evidence or even speculative ideas as to which is the real R2 or if they both are, or why cree would do this?
> 
> Edit: btw, yes, the two pictures I posted are from the same angle. and yes, they are the same picture, but "photoshopped" to show what I was talking about.


I have never seen any XR-Es that looked like that. Not saying it hasn't happened before but it seems unlikely that this is some random fluke that happens in production every now and then. That wouldn't explain the two pictures bshanahan14rulz posted and the LEDs you received. What are the odds right? So here are a few theories. Theory #1 You have counterfeit LEDs. I doubt this is the case but it could happen. Theory #2 Manufacturing variance. Considering the available evidence I also feel this is unlikely. Theory #3 This one we will break up into two parts under the idea that these are genuine Cree LEDs. #3A Cree has merely made a slight design change in the way they produce the XR-E. #3B Cree is making the SiC, that the LED sits on, bigger so that the new XP-G's die can be used in the XR package.

Assuming that the LED die is in fact an XR-Es the SiC base in those pictures is larger than all the ones I have seen. This is what makes me think it may be the new XR-G SiC base being used across the board with the XR-E die and what you see around the edge is the excess solder pad for the larger die. 


Of course none of the above may be correct. What is clear is that we need some really good close-up shots of what you have.


----------



## Illum (Jun 22, 2009)

phantom23 said:


> http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=9033
> http://www.kaidomain.com/ProductImages.aspx?ProductId=8324
> Second pictures in both links - orange edging is clearly visible.



hosted over








interesting...I wonder if that helps with heatsinking at all:candle:
More than likely it may be a form of marker, but more often than not appearances like this would have been previously thought of as a fried [or fully cooked] XR-E


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 23, 2009)

I like SaaBlaster's idea 3A, or whichever was about updating the package to be able to work with both ez1000 and the new larger dice used in xp-g. I brought both LEDs to work today, but all we have is a 3G-S camera, and I can't find my TSX clear aspheric to help magnify >.< 

Saa, are you used to using american cree or chinese cree? Someone here stated that american cree emitters have phosphor over the entire visible substrate under the lens, while chinese cree emitters have a silver back.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 23, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I like SaaBlaster's idea 3A, or whichever was about updating the package to be able to work with both ez1000 and the new larger dice used in xp-g. I brought both LEDs to work today, but all we have is a 3G-S camera, and I can't find my TSX clear aspheric to help magnify >.<
> 
> Saa, are you used to using american cree or chinese cree? Someone here stated that american cree emitters have phosphor over the entire visible substrate under the lens, while chinese cree emitters have a silver back.


I have both but mainly the silver backs.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 23, 2009)

Ok, folks, not the best shots, but my friend at work says he has a nicer camera that should be able to do macro, although not both at the same time unless it's sunny again... perhaps I should finish up that mag mini mod as a bribe...

The LEDs are oriented at the same height. I also noticed that the angle between the bond wires that go to the top of the die is smaller on one, and as expected, it is the smaller one. the domes look exactly the same in profile. 

First pic, kind of blurry, camera is not quite centered... kinda closer to the larger one on the left





Second pic, also kind of blurry, camera is more over the smaller one now





Third pic, sharpest pic, directly over the smaller one. 





Ok, honestly, I was trying to have it centered the whole time except that last pic, so the first two pics didn't show up too well, the third pic doesn't show the larger die too well, Sorry, perhaps better pics tomorrow.


P.S. to SaaBlaster: I couldn't tell for sure, but I don't think that the SiC looks any different in size... I am assuming the SiC substrate is only that rectangle with the + mark on it and that the die sits on


----------



## Helmut.G (Jun 23, 2009)

saabluster said:


> #3B Cree is making the SiC, that the LED sits on, bigger so that the new XP-G's die can be used in the XR package.


+1
that's what I thought
could be possible

bshanahan14rulz, skip the "normal" left one if you take more pictures, just show us the interesting die, as big as possible :huh:


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 23, 2009)

I'll see if I can do that tomorrow. Looks to me like substrate is same size. bond wires look like they diverge less. I mean, it's obvious that the image of the die is smaller from one compared to the other because the 3 small rectangles are smaller, but since everything else in there looks the same size, my brain concluded that the die is smaller. I'm kind of surprised nobody else has noticed this yet. It seems like it would be important for those of you who are very precise with your builds, esp. the thrower crowd, who need small area to throw better. People, get all your various assorted LEDs and give 'em a good looking over.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 23, 2009)

I recently got a K-106. Looking close, and lo and behold it has the smaller die. At first I thought they changed the dome geometry, so from looking from the outside it just has a smaller apparent die size, but looking closer it's only the die itself that looks smaller. 

At least that's how it looks by the naked eye. 

I suspect it has something to do with the newer XP-E and XP-G series.

Oh, and I do see the exposed copper pad area as well. So no, you are not crazy.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 23, 2009)

Marduke said:


> I recently got a K-106. Looking close, and lo and behold it has the smaller die. At first I thought they changed the dome geometry, so from looking from the outside it just has a smaller apparent die size, but looking closer it's only the die itself that looks smaller.
> 
> At least that's how it looks by the naked eye.
> 
> ...



Although I may be right on this that is hardly evidence that I'm not crazy. Looking at those pictures it looks like there is more going on though. If they are both XR-E dies then the base being larger does not explain the fact that one die appears much smaller. So either the small one is an updated XR-C die or there are other changes such as the index of refraction of the gel and glass used to encapsulate the LED causing a reduction in the magnification.:shrug: I don't know. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 23, 2009)

Well, it looks like the base is the same size, but the physical die is shrunk. Perhaps they did something to shrink the EZ1000 dice for the XP-E and no one noticed the small change before, or attributed the slightly different look to the dome shape difference between the models.

It is possible the base is larger and the die is the same size, but then the geometry or materials of the dome would HAVE to be different.


----------



## znomit (Jun 23, 2009)

Can they change the die and still call it an XR-E?
A smaller brighter die may give the same lumens but none of the current optics would give the same beam.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

znomit said:


> Can they change the die and still call it an XR-E?


No. I even went to Crees website to see if the dies data sheets have been updated recently. Nothing. 

I want to see good macros and some macro profile shots. This one has my head spinning.:thinking: :shrug:


----------



## znomit (Jun 24, 2009)

saabluster said:


> No. I even went to Crees website to see if the dies data sheets have been updated recently. Nothing.



Yes but do they have a die size listed on the data sheet? I couldn't see one.
They do chart "Typical Spatial Distribution" so any die change would need to mimic that. I guess they could change the dome as well... but then it would still look the same size.
:thinking:


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

znomit said:


> Yes but do they have a die size listed on the data sheet? I couldn't see one.
> They do chart "Typical Spatial Distribution" so any die change would need to mimic that. I guess they could change the dome as well... but then it would still look the same size.
> :thinking:


You have to look at the die's data sheet. The 1000 is the XR-E and the 700 is the XR-C.


 EZ1000 LED Specifications 
 EZ700 LED Specifications


----------



## znomit (Jun 24, 2009)

I can't see the EZ1000 listed anywhere on the XR-E datasheets.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

znomit said:


> I can't see the EZ1000 listed anywhere on the XR-E datasheets.


You just have to know these things.:nana:


----------



## znomit (Jun 24, 2009)

saabluster said:


> You just have to know these things.:nana:



lol!

Yes I do know it, but if its not in the datasheet cree can change it! 
I do think thats very unlikely though.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

znomit said:


> I do think thats very unlikely though.


Agreed.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 24, 2009)

But what constitutes a change? They change small things all the time. Materials, production methods, etc. If they meet some short list of delivery specs, they can call it the same.


----------



## Illum (Jun 24, 2009)

Marduke said:


> I suspect it has something to do with the newer XP-E and XP-G series.



well now, since Marduke agrees I don't think pics would be more convincing:naughty:

the XP series do not have the same LED package as the XR series even though both uses the same die format. Does the orange frame resemble possibly a copper shim of sorts on the LED base between the die and slug?


----------



## Marduke (Jun 24, 2009)

It is not a shim. It appears to be electroplated. Or it was there to begin with and the die covered it up fully. 

Looking at it under a jewelers loop, the more ragged edge of the phosphor at the edge of the die gave me another thought. 

So far they have only been seen on very cheap lights. What if these are the first fake Cree's?


----------



## moviles (Jun 24, 2009)

*left*:cree XR E *chip ez900* bin q5 (0.88mm)*---right* cree XR E *chip ez1000* bin q5(0.98mm)

chip ez900 (0.88mm):
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3DX.pdf
chip ez1000 (0.98mm):
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3CR.pdf


----------



## ergotelis (Jun 24, 2009)

Well nice find moviles this seems to explain the mystery!


----------



## Marduke (Jun 24, 2009)

Well that answers that.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 24, 2009)

So this now means that we have a way to at least make a more educated guess on the flux bin of a given LED by appearance! :twothumbs

On a slightly sadder note, both "R2" are Q5? meh, at least not p4....

And word of warning, these are the DX dropin that comes with the ultrafire C1 and the DX R2 single mode dropin (smaller one)

Edit: after looking at the datasheets, the smaller die ez900 is a generation 2 die, and has higher average radiant fluxes (fluxi?) than the ex1000. Does this mean it should theoretically be brighter? Moviles, how did you figure out Q5? is there a calculation involved to convert something to lumens?


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

moviles said:


> *right* :cree XR E *chip ez900* bin q5 (0.88mm)*---left* cree XR E *chip ez1000* bin q5(0.98mm)
> 
> chip ez900 (0.88mm):
> http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3DX.pdf
> ...



Great job moviles! I can't believe I missed that. Those sneaky devils.




bshanahan14rulz said:


> So this now means that we have a way to at least make a more educated guess on the flux bin of a given LED by appearance! :twothumbs
> 
> On a slightly sadder note, both "R2" are Q5? meh, at least not p4....
> 
> ...


You still cannot tell bin by looking at it. I'm sure he says they are Q5 because that is the bin he bought. 

I am very glad to see this. I was worried with all the development around larger and larger dies that they would stop working on flux density. This does not appear to be true since the new smaller dies appear to be even more powerful.This is good for throwers.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

There is some interesting stuff looking at the data sheet. The new die not surprisingly are going to be more averse to being highly overdriven. It has some changes in the technology used in the die which helps increase output but there is no getting around the fact that the die is smaller and with less area to conduct heat away from the die it will have a hard time handling the insane amounts of current the ez1000 die could in this package. I think I have even taken the XR-E up to 3A before without it blowing. But with the higher output it may not be necessary to overdrive as much to reach the same output. We should be seeing R3 XR-Es soon I would imagine if this die is already being seen in the wild.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 24, 2009)

Yeah, Saa, but who cares about throwers? Well, maybe that guy who makes those DEFT thingamabobs...


----------



## saabluster (Jun 24, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> Yeah, Saa, but who cares about throwers? Well, maybe that guy who makes those DEFT thingamabobs...


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 24, 2009)

Saa, you should find one of these and do a side by side w/ DEFT! 
Well, if you have time

I'm just sayin....


----------



## znomit (Jun 24, 2009)

moviles said:


> chip ez900 (0.88mm):
> http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3DX.pdf



Nice find. lovecpf

I can't actually find a link to that page anywhere though :shrug:

Is it new? Is it old?


----------



## saabluster (Jun 25, 2009)

znomit said:


> Nice find. lovecpf
> 
> I can't actually find a link to that page anywhere though :shrug:
> 
> Is it new? Is it old?



Look here under "EZBright Gen II"


----------



## saabluster (Jun 25, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Well that answers that.


Well sort of. Although it appears we now know what die that is we don't know why. There is a Gen II EZ1000 so why would they stick the EZ900 die in there?


----------



## saabluster (Jun 25, 2009)

saabluster said:


> Well sort of. Although it appears we now know what die that is we don't know why. There is a Gen II EZ1000 so why would they stick the EZ900 die in there?



Well what you failed to look at Mr Saab is that the Gen II EZ1000 die has only been released in green. I swear. :shakehead Some people.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 25, 2009)

It's kind of nice to see cree slipping in new advances in LED efficiency just because they can, but it would be nicer (for both us as users and the company's publicity) if they would tell us "oh, by the way, we got a new chip that puts out more power and is ALSO smaller!" instead of just making the switch while no one is looking 

So, do you think the smaller die is more likely an R2 than the larger die? I wonder how much of a difference it will make in beam patterns...


----------



## saabluster (Jun 25, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> It's kind of nice to see cree slipping in new advances in LED efficiency just because they can, but it would be nicer (for both us as users and the company's publicity) if they would tell us "oh, by the way, we got a new chip that puts out more power and is ALSO smaller!" instead of just making the switch while no one is looking
> 
> So, do you think the smaller die is more likely an R2 than the larger die? I wonder how much of a difference it will make in beam patterns...


There will be very very little difference in beam pattern. That may be why they didn't feel the need to say anything about it. I have no idea if those are genuine R2s. The message I get from some suppliers says that R2s are really hard to come by so you would think that if a distributor couldn't get them than the Chinese companies using "R2s" may be lying. But I think the "we can't get them" line is just an excuse because they don't _want_ to get them. They also don't have M bin MC-Es.:thinking: I don't believe those are all that hard to come by. Also if that LED has the new die in it with the new enhancements one would think there would be an even greater chance of it being an R2 than if it had the old die.


----------



## Illum (Jun 25, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> It's kind of nice to see cree slipping in new advances in LED efficiency just because they can, but it would be nicer (for both us as users and the company's publicity) if they would tell us "oh, by the way, we got a new chip that puts out more power and is ALSO smaller!" instead of just making the switch while no one is looking



wheres the fun then? the surprise will have been lost once they post anything relating to a preliminary datasheet...and we've seen enough of the XP-E rage haven't we?:nana:


----------



## koala (Jun 25, 2009)

saabluster said:


> There will be very very little difference in beam pattern. That may be why they didn't feel the need to say anything about it. I have no idea if those are genuine R2s. The message I get from some suppliers says that R2s are really hard to come by so you would think that if a distributor couldn't get them than the Chinese companies using "R2s" may be lying. But I think the "we can't get them" line is just an excuse because they don't _want_ to get them. They also don't have M bin MC-Es.:thinking: I don't believe those are all that hard to come by. Also if that LED has the new die in it with the new enhancements one would think there would be an even greater chance of it being an R2 than if it had the old die.



You are right they are not hard to get. I have seen many reels of R2 myself at one place, in different tints. So the supplier you mention probably has temporary shortage of component. Stocking these gems in large quantity is not a wise idea, pay premium price for R2 today, and when R3 is released you will have trouble with your R2s.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 26, 2009)

I wish SiC had bin etched on it lol


----------



## Helmut.G (Jun 26, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I wish SiC had bin etched on it lol


since the binning is based on measurements of the completely assembled LEDs this is hardly possible


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 26, 2009)

well, how about etched on the ceramic substrate? I don't really care where, as long as it is marked and obvious that cree marked it...

I wouldn't say it's impossible to etch on the SiC, since etching is done with lasers and the SiC esd diode is clearly visible, but it would take custom machinery that adjusts for the fact that it is shining through something, and it would also have to do so w/o damaging the glass and goo and stuff.

But good call, I'd forgotten binning is post-construction.

I still think that it would affect the beam of lensed throwers. if the die is noticeably smaller, (seriously, even if that copper square wasn't around it and the substrate and SiC were scaled to same aspect as the die, the dice are obviously different sizes) ... the beam should be noticeably smaller too, since any detail is multiplied as the image increases in size compared to the die. More light in a smaller area would be the result. Wait, isn't that what a thrower does? :duh2:


----------



## WeLight (Jun 27, 2009)

moviles said:


> *right* :cree XR E *chip ez900* bin q5 (0.88mm)*---left* cree XR E *chip ez1000* bin q5(0.98mm)
> 
> chip ez900 (0.88mm):
> http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3DX.pdf
> ...



Cree dont go to the bathroom without issuing a Product change notice, other than an XRC I dont know what this is but Cree would not just go substituing die without advising distributors and customers, the ramifications for such a move ie optics effects for major customers who have designed around the EZ1000 die(XRE) product would be potentially disastrous


----------



## spencer (Jun 27, 2009)

It is possible that the beam is not much different and because of the lack of difference they thought they didn't need to tell anyone.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 27, 2009)

They probably did tell who it really did matter to, which was probably a very short list for such a minor change.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 28, 2009)

WeLight said:


> Cree dont go to the bathroom without issuing a Product change notice, other than an XRC I dont know what this is but Cree would not just go substituing die without advising distributors and customers, the ramifications for such a move ie optics effects for major customers who have designed around the EZ1000 die(XRE) product would be potentially disastrous


Well it sure isn't an XR-C that much is for sure. The only thing it could be is the new Gen II die. It seems to be more evolutionary than revolutionary so I don't necessarily think a public notice is necessary. This really is a teeny tiny change. It does seem a bit odd for Cree though. Are you going to alert Cree about this and report back? Otherwise I will do so.


----------



## csshih (Jun 28, 2009)

The nitecore EZAA cool white I have uses the slightly smaller die.


----------



## moviles (Jun 28, 2009)

i have many cree led flashlights with XR E package: 7x uf c3 p4 ,3 x uf c3 q5,2 X akoray106 ,uf a10 jetbeam jet 1 pro.....more than 20 flashlights with XR E

the 90% of my cree XR E package q5bin they have the ez1000 chip(0.98mm)
only 10% of my cree XR E package q5bin they have the ez900 chip(0.88mm)

the 80% of my cree XR E package p4 bin they have the ez900 chip(0.88mm)
only 20% of my cree XR E package p4 bin they have the ez1000 chip(0.98mm)

and all my romisen rc-g2 p2bin have the bad ez600 chip(0.58mm and only 2 wires)
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3DH.pdf

i prefer the ez1000 chip,the ez900 chip it cannot resist more than 2.9 amp for more than 30 seconds 

i prefer the ez900chip only for pocket powerful light sabres (romisen rc-g2 aspherical with small lens and 14500 [email protected] 2.75 amp)

the chips of new cree leds with XP G package will be bigger than ez1000 (around 2mmx 2 mm)


----------



## Benson (Jun 28, 2009)

My EZ-AA (4sevens pre-order, shipped on the first day) has the old-style, but all lights from my most recent DX order have small-die LEDs, including a WF-008 recoil thrower.

Now I know the ~10% difference shouldn't really be visible except in a _very_ closely examined head-to-head, but every bit helps, and it is good to know my newest thrower has it.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 28, 2009)

I know it sounds like a crazy idea, but why not just ask Cree. I expect they will not ship with two different die sizes as the apparent source size will make a difference in the light distribution pattern. They only spec the FWHM, but that may change given the dome on the LED if you change the die size.

Cree will likely either say they use different size dies in the XRE or they will tell you that it is a clone (or XRC). Has anyone bought XRE from a direct CREE distributor and see a difference in die size?

...just had a thought, they provide pro-source optical models. Those are highly accurate and would be affected by die size. That tells me the die size is likely consistent, but lets ask Cree.

Semiman


----------



## CampingLED (Jun 28, 2009)

moviles said:


> *right* :cree XR E *chip ez900* bin q5 (0.88mm)*---left* cree XR E *chip ez1000* bin q5(0.98mm)
> 
> chip ez900 (0.88mm):
> http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/CPR3DX.pdf
> ...


 
Is it my PC screen or did you swap the pics OR descriptions? The one on the "right" looks larger than the one on the "left".


----------



## Helmut.G (Jun 28, 2009)

CampingLED said:


> Is it my PC screen or did you swap the pics OR descriptions? The one on the "right" looks larger than the one on the "left".


yeah the small die is actually on the left. Still a really useful post lovecpf


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 28, 2009)

I thought I would mention that the P4 I got with the x2000 aspheric zooming thingamabob has the smaller ez900 die as well. It must be recent DX lights, which kind of bothers me... As long as it's a cree die, I guess... I'm not overdriving my LEDs, so it shouldn't matter too much.

Welight, you probably go through quite a few LEDs, and I thought I read on Cree site that you were a distributor, you notice anything that might indicate when a person is more likely to receive an ez900 xre or an ez1000 xre?


----------



## saabluster (Jun 29, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I thought I would mention that the P4 I got with the x2000 aspheric zooming thingamabob has the smaller ez900 die as well. It must be recent DX lights, which kind of bothers me... As long as it's a cree die, I guess... I'm not overdriving my LEDs, so it shouldn't matter too much.
> 
> Welight, you probably go through quite a few LEDs, and I thought I read on Cree site that you were a distributor, you notice anything that might indicate when a person is more likely to receive an ez900 xre or an ez1000 xre?


Seeing as he has never even gotten the memo on these new die in the XR-E I doubt he will be able to answer that. 

I love ya Cree but this is bad form not informing the distributors of changes no matter how insignificant. It makes them look bad. :tsk: Of course the possibility exists they _did_ send the memo and Welight failed to read it.:shrug: Who knows. It's not a big deal.


----------



## SemiMan (Jun 29, 2009)

Cree has very few "TRUE" distributors, i.e. in N.A. Arrow, Digikey, Newark and ATG. ... Arrow has them worldwide. Their franchised distributors would know if told and should tell their customers.

Semiman


----------



## IMSabbel (Jun 29, 2009)

Strange. 

Am i the only one who thinks this is really cool?
Smaller die at the same bin -> higher surface brightness with no loss in efficiency. 
Win-Win

(Well, this of course goes for packaged lights with a predefined working envelope)


----------



## saabluster (Jun 29, 2009)

IMSabbel said:


> Strange.
> 
> Am i the only one who thinks this is really cool?
> Smaller die at the same bin -> higher surface brightness with no loss in efficiency.
> ...


I'm am totally with you on that. As I said in an earlier post. 

"I am very glad to see this. I was worried with all the development around larger and larger dies that they would stop working on flux density. This does not appear to be true since the new smaller dies appear to be even more powerful.This is good for throwers."


----------



## WeLight (Jun 29, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I thought I would mention that the P4 I got with the x2000 aspheric zooming thingamabob has the smaller ez900 die as well. It must be recent DX lights, which kind of bothers me... As long as it's a cree die, I guess... I'm not overdriving my LEDs, so it shouldn't matter too much.
> 
> Welight, you probably go through quite a few LEDs, and I thought I read on Cree site that you were a distributor, you notice anything that might indicate when a person is more likely to receive an ez900 xre or an ez1000 xre?



As I said I am not aware of this change and did not get any 'memo' Trust me I would have noticed it. The higher output in torches if an XRC is possible as the smaller die actually produces more cd/lum than XRE in TIR apps
 XR-C XR-E Typical Lumens @ 350 mA Cree 247 Lens 
60 Lum 80 Lum
Using a Cree Designed Cree 247 Lens
Peak Intensity/Lm 
XRC= 47 cd/lm 
XRE= 24 cd/lm 
Peak Intensity 
XRC=2,820 cd 
XRE=1,920 cd XLamp 

XR-C can produce a significantly higher peak intensity than XR-E using narrow beam TIR XR-E optics!


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jun 29, 2009)

I noticed ez1000gen2 pdf is available on cree.com and has stated that the thickness of the ez1000 has increased from 100um to 170um. Perhaps you can keep an eye out? Do you think these would be more suitable for overdriving? I know that bigger area seems to indicate better current handling when overdriven, but what about bigger volume?


----------



## Illum (Jun 29, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I noticed ez1000gen2 pdf is available on cree.com and has stated that the thickness of the ez1000 has increased from 100um to 170um.... Do you think these would be more suitable for overdriving?



Bigger volume would indicate more light output at the same amount of current input, whether or not they should be suitable for overdriving will depend on whether or not they thickened the bondwires as welll


----------



## saabluster (Jun 29, 2009)

WeLight said:


> As I said I am not aware of this change and did not get any 'memo' Trust me I would have noticed it. The higher output in torches if an XRC is possible as the smaller die actually produces more cd/lum than XRE in TIR apps
> XR-C XR-E Typical Lumens @ 350 mA Cree 247 Lens
> 60 Lum 80 Lum
> Using a Cree Designed Cree 247 Lens
> ...


I believe you if you say you never got a notice from them. Keep in mind what we are discussing here is *not *an XR-C. The XR-C die is even smaller than the small die in the posted pictures and the current spreaders are of a different design. This is *not* an XR-C.


----------



## WeLight (Jun 29, 2009)

saabluster said:


> I believe you if you say you never got a notice from them. Keep in mind what we are discussing here is *not *an XR-C. The XR-C die is even smaller than the small die in the posted pictures and the current spreaders are of a different design. This is *not* an XR-C.



It seems there is a product change notice related to this that I did not get. It is available here for those that are interested

http://www.cutter.com.au/prodimages/PC-06.pdf


----------



## Black Rose (Jun 29, 2009)

Your link is not working right. There are 2 http in the actual link.


----------



## lonesouth (Jun 29, 2009)

Illum said:


> Bigger volume would indicate more light output at the same amount of current input


 
following this, a die the same size as the ez1000 but with the technology of the ez900 would necessarily produce significantly more light. I say significant because they look significantly different in size, especially with the knowledge that the 900 is 70% thicker. Looks like a good marketing play by cree to decrease the die size in order to maintain the pecking order of the binning. I.E. a Q5 with ez1000 tech puts out 105lm @ 350ma, so rather than update the specs with different numbers, they reduced the die till they saw 105lm @ 350ma. Imagine if they had left the die the same size, they could not call it a Q5, but there is still demand for a lower cost two year old technology. A parallel in the automotive world is the GM inline series. They are all 90% the same, just differnt in size, I4, I5, I6. Change the size of the engine, die, and offer it as the cheaper alternative, even though it cost marginally less to make it smaller, but still high enough to make a profit.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 29, 2009)

lonesouth said:


> following this, a die the same size as the ez1000 but with the technology of the ez900 would necessarily produce significantly more light. I say significant because they look significantly different in size, especially with the knowledge that the 900 is 70% thicker. Looks like a good marketing play by cree to decrease the die size in order to maintain the pecking order of the binning. I.E. a Q5 with ez1000 tech puts out 105lm @ 350ma, so rather than update the specs with different numbers, they reduced the die till they saw 105lm @ 350ma. Imagine if they had left the die the same size, they could not call it a Q5, but there is still demand for a lower cost two year old technology. A parallel in the automotive world is the GM inline series. They are all 90% the same, just differnt in size, I4, I5, I6. Change the size of the engine, die, and offer it as the cheaper alternative, even though it cost marginally less to make it smaller, but still high enough to make a profit.



Perhaps you did not read the above thread in it's entirety. There is a gen 2 EZ1000 die using the same tech in the same area, but thicker size.

I think you are also confused on how LED's are binned and labeled. They don't make specific bins, they make the best they can, and bin them later. Bins are NOT models, they are a grading scale.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 29, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Perhaps you did not read the above thread in it's entirety. There is a gen 2 EZ1000 die using the same tech in the same area, but thicker size.



Yes but the Gen II EZ1000 is only available in green.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 30, 2009)

saabluster said:


> Yes but the Gen II EZ1000 is only available in green.



At the moment...


----------



## saabluster (Jun 30, 2009)

lonesouth said:


> following this, a die the same size as the ez1000 but with the technology of the ez900 would necessarily produce significantly more light. I say significant because they look significantly different in size, especially with the knowledge that the 900 is 70% thicker. Looks like a good marketing play by cree to decrease the die size in order to maintain the pecking order of the binning. I.E. a Q5 with ez1000 tech puts out 105lm @ 350ma, so rather than update the specs with different numbers, they reduced the die till they saw 105lm @ 350ma. Imagine if they had left the die the same size, they could not call it a Q5, but there is still demand for a lower cost two year old technology. A parallel in the automotive world is the GM inline series. They are all 90% the same, just differnt in size, I4, I5, I6. Change the size of the engine, die, and offer it as the cheaper alternative, even though it cost marginally less to make it smaller, but still high enough to make a profit.



:thinking:That is some *really* strange reasoning.


----------



## lonesouth (Jun 30, 2009)

Please explain to me what the output of an LED would be if it had the newer technology of the thicker 170um die, but with the footprint of the older die. Would it be brighter than the older die of 100um thickness? Does the newer tech offer a higher density, output per area (length by width), than the older tech? If so, what is the incentive for Cree to produce a smaller size die and call it an XR-E?

I do understand that binning is a grade scale, not a model line. I am suggesting that Cree is making binning more of a target than a grade with the smaller dies.

Incidentally, the P4s I just received were also of the smaller die.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 30, 2009)

Using the newer tech with the EZ1000 die, you would get a higher proportion of R bin emitters.

I highly suspect that is why the XP-G's bins are so high.


----------



## lonesouth (Jun 30, 2009)

lonesouth said:


> a Q5 with ez1000 tech puts out 105lm @ 350ma, so rather than *update the specs with different numbers*, they reduced the die till they saw 105lm @ 350ma.



I realize that the above, especially the bold, is flat wrong. A Q5 is any XR-E or XR-C that produces 107-114lm @ 350ma.



Marduke said:


> There is a gen 2 EZ1000 die using the same tech in the same area, but thicker size.
> 
> ...
> 
> Using the newer tech with the EZ1000 die, you would get a higher proportion of R bin emitters.



It would follow, then, that the Gen II EZ1000 die would produce a lower proportion of lower binned emitters. This would reduce the ability to satisfy demand for these lower bins. So in order to continue to produce emitters in the same proportion of the Gen I EZ1000, the EZ900 was created to allow Cree to continue to offer lower binned LEDs. I think of the future cool white Gen II EZ1000 as Cree's ace in the hole. Care to speculate, or extrapolate, what the potential output of a cool white Gen II EZ1000 will be?

also please forgive that I have been using die improperly in place of dice when referring to a single emitter.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 30, 2009)

There is no demand for lower bin emitters. High volume customers just buy what is cheapest, regardless of bin. When advances mean better bins become the cheap low end, they became norm. Specing P4 or better is still common, even though most produced are now Q bin. 

Most likely the new die size is simply a result of the most cost effective size that could be cut out of the newly designed wafer.


----------



## saabluster (Jun 30, 2009)

lonesouth said:


> Please explain to me what the output of an LED would be if it had the newer technology of the thicker 170um die, but with the footprint of the older die.



Lets say we had an XR-E with the new EZ900 die and it was a Q5. Now if that same exact die had been cut at the larger EZ1000 size it would be roughly 25% brighter which would make it an R4 bin.


----------



## unterhausen (Jul 1, 2009)

Black Rose said:


> Your link is not working right. There are 2 http in the actual link.


 here is his link

Here is what it says, not very satisfying:


> Cree will begin shipment of XLamp XR-E LEDs with different visual appearances. An example of an XLamp XR-E LED
> with different visual appearance is shown in the pictures below. These visually different XLamp XR-E LEDs meet the
> product specifications, reliability and lifetime projections stated on the XLamp XR-E data sheet.
> 
> ...


----------



## znomit (Jul 1, 2009)

This thread is useless without beamshots!


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jul 1, 2009)

znomit said:


> This thread is useless without beamshots!



+1, aspheric beamshots!


----------



## Black Rose (Jul 4, 2009)

I was tinkering with my P60 drop-ins this morning and discovered that one of my SuperBright R2 drop-ins (from Solarforce Store) has the new smaller die in it.

This one is a really nice cool white (my preference).


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jul 4, 2009)

yep, I have a "Superbright R2" drop-in as well, never can tell if it's same company or if that's just the standard Chinese translation...


----------



## SemiMan (Jul 4, 2009)

Has anyone pulled the domes to see what the real die size is? You can not tell the die size with the dome on, it makes the die look much bigger. A change in the optical height may make the die look smaller though the effective source size may not change. 

Semiman


----------



## saabluster (Jul 5, 2009)

SemiMan said:


> Has anyone pulled the domes to see what the real die size is?


 
You don't need to do that if you read the data sheets. It is quite easy to see which one is which just using your eyes and the data sheets.


----------



## Christexan (Jul 10, 2009)

Okay, waking up an "old" thread here, but I'm behind sue me...

Regarding the die change, we now know there is an official "product change" announcement. It is mostly cosmetic, more importantly though, if it doesn't change the fundamental specs from the published numbers, they don't "HAVE" to tell anyone or warn anyone. If it's (example only) 100lm/[email protected], with a lambertian pattern and a FWHM at 22.5 degrees, with a given color/output bin it doesn't matter what dice are used if they match those published specs. Yes, there may be some differences in the pattern, but it still fits the fundamental specs, so they don't HAVE to change anything or make a big announcement. 

More importantly, using an 8" wafer and an online "die per wafer" calculator, we see a potential change from 285130 dice per wafer (.98mm) to 354290 dice per wafer (.88mm). That's over 69000 more units produced meeting the original specifications, or a nearly 25% increase in units per wafer. (Which improves their profit per unit, by (25%*(percentage cost of die per package)). Might only save $0.005 per unit, but even on a 2500 unit reel, that's $12.50 in money kept in the bank. 

Then of course, using the same production methods on the EZ1000, allows the higher lumen binning, so now they can sell the "more expensive" higher bins, again making more profit, and increase their lead on the competition hopefully. 

Basically it's nearly all a win (for Cree and consumers), unless you have a critical application based on perfectly matching the EZ1000 beam pattern, which isn't likely, any shift (there will be SOME change) likely won't be terribly significant as has been mentioned (slightly less spill if all else is equal, but 90% of the beam will likely have no visible (to the naked eye) differences, since we are only losing the outer 10% edge of the die). If you need a floody LED, then this will be slightly less useful, since it seems the real desire is for a more "point source" LED, this is actually an improved development.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jul 10, 2009)

I've noticed some TIR lenses are made specifically for a square emitter. While the emitter is still square, the beam may be tighter with the smaller dice. Same with aspherics, since the die is (pulling this number outta my donkey) 10% smaller, shouldn't the projected image be 10% smaller, and hence throw that much further?


----------

