# CREE XM-L VS MC-E



## led2011 (Dec 10, 2011)

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 (Dec 10, 2011)

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 (Dec 12, 2011)

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.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Dec 12, 2011)

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


----------



## deadrx7conv (Dec 12, 2011)

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

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


----------



## znomit (Dec 15, 2011)

deadrx7conv said:


> 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.


----------



## deadrx7conv (Dec 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Dec 15, 2011)

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

edit: yeah, what he said ^


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 15, 2011)

So would the 6v XM-L EZW be a more up-to-date choice for the usual LuxV --> MC-E (2s2p) upgrade? :thinking:


----------



## AaronM (Dec 15, 2011)

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


----------



## znomit (Dec 16, 2011)

deadrx7conv said:


> 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. :shakehead
Heres another, 46V XML 
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXM-L_HVW.pdf


----------



## Pöbel (Dec 19, 2011)

AaronM said:


> 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
> ...



There is also the N-Bin MC-E which gets much closer to the XM-L (T6) efficiency wise.


----------

