# CREE announces new XB-D LED



## gte861s (Jan 11, 2012)

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/9/1/16
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57356807-54/cree-shrinks-light-engines-for-cheaper-leds/


----------



## deadrx7conv (Jan 11, 2012)

http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp_xbd.asp


----------



## Kinnza (Jan 12, 2012)

Finally, 1A max and thermal resistance 6.5 ºC/W instead of the announced 1.5A and 5 ºC/W. It seems the small bottom slug limits the amount of heat dissipation. 2.45*2.45mm is really small for an high power LED.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jan 12, 2012)

Interesting phosphor technique, I wonder what it would look like in a reflector...

I also wonder if they will make changes to the substrate design, maybe thinner ceramic and the diode/heatspreader platform like they had on the XRs


----------



## mds82 (Jan 12, 2012)

With this announcement that means that the XT-E White will be following soon


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 12, 2012)

How many freaking LED models is Cree going to make? Why don't they invest a little money in improving the color rendering of their phosphors already?


----------



## Steve K (Jan 12, 2012)

the CNET article says:
"Cree's smaller LED is just 2.45 millimeters on either side of the base and covered with a dome-shaped lens with a phosphor to change the light color. Having a smaller light source means that lighting designers can lower costs by using fewer or smaller components, such as lenses, heat sink, and circuit board, said Scheidt. "

How exactly does shrinking the LED footprint allow you to use a smaller heatsink?? You still have the same energy that you have to get out of the LED package, but now you have a smaller area that it has to pass through.

I can understand that a smaller die would save money, and a smaller package would reduce Cree's cost, but otherwise... the small package doesn't do anything for me.

Steve K.


----------



## calipsoii (Jan 12, 2012)

fyrstormer said:


> How many freaking LED models is Cree going to make? Why don't they invest a little money in improving the color rendering of their phosphors already?



*smiles*

+1 

My thoughts exactly


----------



## blasterman (Jan 12, 2012)

> How exactly does shrinking the LED footprint allow you to use a smaller heatsink?? You still have the same energy that you have to get out of the LED package, but now you have a smaller area that it has to pass through.



Good question - curious if anybody has any answers. This seems like moving in a direction of the Rebel if you ask me.

Looking at the fixed lighting market I am seeing a trend away from high current designs simply because it costs more for the circuit. Otherwise, in term of efficiency it matches the XP-G.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 12, 2012)

blasterman said:


> Looking at the fixed lighting market I am seeing a trend away from high current designs simply because it costs more for the circuit. Otherwise, in term of efficiency it matches the XP-G.



I suspect that as performance improves, there are price/performance sweet spots that fluctuate between larger numbers of lower-power LED's and small numbers of high-power LED's. I keep expecting some designs based on SMD LED's to take off, but they just never seem to make the lumens...


----------



## Microa (Jan 13, 2012)

According to the XB-D's data sheet, the XB-D is better than XP-G in term of efficiency. The lumen output for XB-D is rated at 85C junctin temperature while XP-G is rated at 25C. When the XB-D junction temperature at 25C, the lumen output will have 15% increase. A XB-D R3 will have 122 x 115% = 140 which is equivalent to a XP-G R5. It seems it is an alternative to XP-G in smaller form factor and lower price.


----------



## Steve K (Jan 13, 2012)

Microa said:


> ..... The lumen output for XB-D is rated at 85C junctin temperature while XP-G is rated at 25C. When the XB-D junction temperature at 25C, the lumen output will have 15% increase. ....



I hadn't picked up on that detail, but they did seem to make a big deal out of using a SiC substrate, which can run hotter than the usual GaN stuff. Maybe that's the explanation for the claim of reduced heatsinking requirements. 

Steve K.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Jan 13, 2012)

So maybe this LED already incorporates an SiC ESD/heatspreader diode as well.


----------



## Lou Minescence (Jan 13, 2012)

There will be a tsunami of Pacific rim lights coming soon.


----------



## blasterman (Jan 13, 2012)

So the higher thermal efficiency goes hand in hand with the smaller package and hence higher possible chip densities. That would make sense.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 13, 2012)

This looks interesting. I am very curious to see what saabluster thinks of this new LED for throw applications. Hopefully he will chime in soon. I don't think we can deduce the actual die size from the tech sheet. Someone will probably have to request a sample and disect it to measure the die. Can it surpass the XP-C in surface brightness? Let's hope so, I want more throw!


----------



## LilKevin715 (Jan 13, 2012)

I am curious as well of the actual die size. The package size is listed but the actual die size isn't listed in the data sheet.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 14, 2012)

LilKevin715 said:


> I am curious as well of the actual die size. The package size is listed but the actual die size isn't listed in the data sheet.



Oddly enough, I called Cree in the past to ask about the die size of the XP-E. I asked if they were the EZ1000 or EZ900. The lady I talked to said she could not tell me that, that it was proprietary. I honestly don't think she really knew what I was talking about but he bottom line was that she wouldn't tell me anything about the die size as if it were some great secret.


----------



## znomit (Jan 14, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> Oddly enough, I called Cree in the past to ask about the die size of the XP-E. I asked if they were the EZ1000 or EZ900. The lady I talked to said she could not tell me that, that it was proprietary. I honestly don't think she really knew what I was talking about but he bottom line was that she wouldn't tell me anything about the die size as if it were some great secret.



There are a few threads hereabouts discussing the XRE die... They have been using both 900 and 1000 with no indication of what you are getting.
Maybe that goes for XPE too. Or maybe they are keeping their options open for future die size reduction.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 14, 2012)

znomit said:


> There are a few threads hereabouts discussing the XRE die... They have been using both 900 and 1000 with no indication of what you are getting.
> Maybe that goes for XPE too. Or maybe they are keeping their options open for future die size reduction.



I think someone has found that they use both EZ1000 and EZ900 for XP-E, too. This new XB-D looks quite different from the pics, as far as the apparent die size/shape. It doesn't look flat in the side image, so I am quite curious about whether it is like that or if that is a distortion from the dome.


----------



## Th232 (Jan 14, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> I think someone has found that they use both EZ1000 and EZ900 for XP-E, too. This new XB-D looks quite different from the pics, as far as the apparent die size/shape. It doesn't look flat in the side image, so I am quite curious about whether it is like that or if that is a distortion from the dome.



Looks like it might be similar to the raised structure used in the XP-E HEW?


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 14, 2012)

Th232 said:


> Looks like it might be similar to the raised structure used in the XP-E HEW?



Has anyone here dissected one of those yet?


----------



## saabluster (Jan 16, 2012)

Mr. Tone said:


> This looks interesting. I am very curious to see what saabluster thinks of this new LED for throw applications. Hopefully he will chime in soon. I don't think we can deduce the actual die size from the tech sheet. Someone will probably have to request a sample and disect it to measure the die. Can it surpass the XP-C in surface brightness? Let's hope so, I want more throw!



Sorry been preoccupied. I don't have any inside knowledge as to what this is exactly and guessing is rarely on the mark but here goes. I believe this is the first application of the DA700 die. Clearly the die is of the "direct attach" variety but the actual size is hard to figure visually. Looking at the thermal resistance gives us a clue as to what may be inside. 

XP-E HEW 6 °C/W This has the same die(da1000) as the XT-E. The XT-E however has a new type of ceramic substrate which presumably has better thermal transfer.
XT-E 5 °C/W
XB-D 6.5 °C/W If the die in this LED was the same as the XT-E(DA1000) we would expect the thermal resistance to be virtually identical. They both have the new ceramic substrate so in that respect they are equals. So why the far higher resistance? IMO this is because the die is smaller. The DA700.

If so I find it unbelievable they can get efficiency numbers out of it like that. I mean it really is remarkable even if it had the DA1000 but the DA700?!! 

The downsides to this LED will be large color-temp variation depending on viewing angle. Less than stellar results in aspheric applications. The ideal that this LED has the DA700 also leaves room for the prophecied XT-E white which would essentially be nothing but the XP-E HEW but with a new substrate. At any rate I am eager to see this new part in person and test it but I really am not getting my hopes up too much when it comes to applications that are near and dear to my heart

There is of course one thing that blows a hole in this theory. Cree spec the DA700 chip at 750mA max current. So either I am wrong or they have since decided the die can handle more. Like I said. Just a guess.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 16, 2012)

Thanks for the speculation, saabluster. So if your deductions are correct the XP-C will probably still be the best for surface brightness and aspheric applications, right? Have you requested a sample, yet?


----------



## Animalmother (Jan 17, 2012)

I can attest to the XP-C seeing it in action under the Golden Gate Bridge today on my TrustFire S-A2. Very impressed. I have yet to use a 14500 in it. This light is one of my favorite lights.

Think they'll use the XB-D in flashlights? How long would it take to see them appear in them for sale roughly?


----------



## jashhash (Jan 17, 2012)

This announcement is bad news for Chinese knock offs. I checked their prices with Arrow electronics and $0.83 per 1000pc is a real good price. Seems just as I find a Chinese knock off that produces twice the light at half the price CREE comes along and introduces a new LED and suddenly the price per lumen plummets. Never before have I seen such intense competition. Everyone is positioning for the largest potential sale of the LED market which is interior and exterior lighting. In the next 6 months I expect the LED will no longer be the most expensive part and the most expensive part will be the LED driver (for street light applications anyways). Cree recently acquired Beta LED (an outdoor street light company) and I expect it would be in their best interest to acquire a driver manufacturer at this point. I see that CREE has already released a light fixture to replace fluorescent ones in offices and their price is really low: http://www.certilight.com/cr-family/22-cr24-40lhe-35k.html. I suspect that this fixture is using the XB-D.


----------



## blasterman (Jan 17, 2012)

> Seems just as I find a Chinese knock off that produces twice the light at half the price CREE comes along and introduces a new LED and suddenly the price per lumen plummets.



Good point. Cree is gradually decreasing their fab costs, and the results are clearly being seen in the retail market. When we build reef lights it was always a battle over the improved efficiency of Cree -vs- cheap Chinese LEDs, and it wasn't too hard to pick a side when Cree cost 2x-3x per lumen.

Now the Chinese emitters are having to compete with $3.40 retail Crees, and a $2.00 Chinese LED can't compete with a $3.40 Cree when the Cree is twice is bright at the same voltage and current. The only competition is the math skills of the person picking the LED's.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 17, 2012)

jashhash said:


> I checked their prices with Arrow electronics and $0.83 per 1000pc is a real good price.


----------



## jashhash (Jan 17, 2012)

Heres something to think about: What if all the LED's that CREE produces only cost 5 cents each and they are just making an enormous profit margin right now? What if they are just releasing new LED's and claiming that the production cost on them is much less to hide their profit margin? What if they have 2 years of secret R&D and are just waiting for China to catch up before releasing a new LED package? Just conspiracy.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 17, 2012)

jashhash said:


> Heres something to think about: What if all the LED's that CREE produces only cost 5 cents each and they are just making an enormous profit margin right now? What if they are just releasing new LED's and claiming that the production cost on them is much less to hide their profit margin? What if they have 2 years of secret R&D and are just waiting for China to catch up before releasing a new LED package? Just conspiracy.



Lumileds seemingly played that game several years ago when they were the only name brand in power LED's. Remember when Luxeon I's & III's were going for $20-$30 each and Luxeon V portables were generally >$50 each _for mediocre bins_? Remember 30 lumens/watt being great performance for the Luxeon III @ 700mA? They made *a lot* of money back then, essentially charging the maximum that the market could bear, probably making >100% or more per part for several years.

As Nichia, Osram, Seoul, etc looked to be closing in on them a better flux bin would suddenly become available, the Vf would drop a bin, or previously unobtainable tint bins would materialize. Too bad they screwed the pooch with the K2 and didn't get reflow-capable parts out in time - thus rapidly lost their lead in the market once their competitors erased their technological lead (but I suspect they're still doing well in lower-profile markets).


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 17, 2012)

Lou Minescence said:


> There will be a tsunami of Pacific rim lights coming soon.


Half the world's population lives near the Pacific Ocean. Of course half the world's stuff will be made there.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 17, 2012)

jashhash said:


> Heres something to think about: What if all the LED's that CREE produces only cost 5 cents each and they are just making an enormous profit margin right now? What if they are just releasing new LED's and claiming that the production cost on them is much less to hide their profit margin? What if they have 2 years of secret R&D and are just waiting for China to catch up before releasing a new LED package? Just conspiracy.


Sounds like the stunt Shimano pulled a few years ago in the bicycle parts market. Everyone else adopted an incremental improvement of an existing standard for the mounting of crankarms, and then Shimano blew them all away with a totally different (and apparently better) design. The other companies were scrambling to come up with decent competition. Pissed me off, because the whole "standard fitment" concept went out the window and those parts became non-interchangeable.


----------



## uk_caver (Jan 17, 2012)

idleprocess said:


> Lumileds seemingly played that game several years ago when they were the only name brand in power LED's. Remember when Luxeon I's & III's were going for $20-$30 each and Luxeon V portables were generally >$50 each _for mediocre bins_?


That must have been very early.
I started using Luxeons for caving lights in spring-summer 2004, when they were something like $15 equivalent here in low (<10) quantities, and already on a downward slope, and I suspect the UK wasn't the cheapest place to get them.



idleprocess said:


> Remember 30 lumens/watt being great performance for the Luxeon III @ 700mA?


I _am_ 'old' enough to remember _that_.
According to my oldest datasheets (autumn 2004), Lux IIIs were min 60lm/700mA while LuxIs were somewhat less good ('min13.9lm, typical 25lm' at 350mA), and I think that's better than they were when I started using them - something more like 'min12, typical 18' seems to spring to mind.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 17, 2012)

uk_caver said:


> That must have been very early.
> I started using Luxeons for caving lights in spring-summer 2004, when they were something like $15 equivalent here in low (<10) quantities, and already on a downward slope, and I suspect the UK wasn't the cheapest place to get them.


I was working for a small manufacturer 2002-2004 that was having trouble with florescent backlights in our products and started researching them in some time around 2003. Very pricey back then for the Lux I with the Lux V "portable" in development and Lux III not even available.

One of the old Lux I "lines" likely would have fulfilled our needs ... for an astronomical price.


----------



## saabluster (Feb 8, 2012)

saabluster said:


> There is of course one thing that blows a hole in this theory. Cree spec the DA700 chip at 750mA max current. So either I am wrong or they have since decided the die can handle more. Like I said. Just a guess.


Well it looks like my theory might just be correct. The XT-E just came out and they spec it a maximum of 1.5A but the actual chip's data sheet says maximum 1A. So apparently they _have_ decided these chips can handle more current. 



Mr. Tone said:


> Thanks for the speculation, saabluster. So if your deductions are correct the XP-C will probably still be the best for surface brightness and aspheric applications, right? Have you requested a sample, yet?


Most likely yes and yes respectively.


----------

