# Which is better/more desirable: Cree XP-E or XR-E?



## HighlanderNorth (Oct 22, 2012)

Early on when I was reading posts and info from here and elsewhere, I noticed that although the xr-e and xp-e are older LED's, I was finding more lights that still use the xr-e and more people still talking about choosing the xr-e than the xp-e. So I assumed that this must be because the xr-e is the newer of the 2. Then I bought a Thrunite Ti, and I found that it has the xp-e, and it was the first relatively recent light that seems to still use the xp-e. So I went to Cree's webpage and read about the xp-e, and it seems that it is actually the newer of the 2 LED's. 

Here's a paragraph from the top of the xp-e page at Cree's site: "The XLamp XP-E LED combines the proven lighting-class performance and reliability of the XLamp XR-E LED in a package with 80% smaller footprint."

It seems the maximum brightness of the 2 LED's is similar, and apparently the xp-e is smaller, which gives my tiny Thrunite Ti's pretty good throw, so aside from size, what is it about the xr-e that seems to make it more appealing still, and which LED is better for FL's?


----------



## yliu (Oct 22, 2012)

From what I know, both are the same thing. They both have the same die (except old XREs that use a slight larger die), the only difference is that the die is mounted in a smaller package.

I've also heard that the XRE tend to have ring artifacts because of the metallic ring around it, but in terms of performance, they should be the same.


----------



## Steve K (Oct 24, 2012)

personally, I used the XR-E in a recent bike light mod because it is easier to handle the XR-E, and because I know that it works well with a particular lens. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurtsj00/sets/72157628920533643/


----------



## sunny_nites (Oct 30, 2012)

I still like the XR-E series as well. As Steve K mentioned, the larger size makes them easier to handle. 

Also, they are quit a bargain; you can pick up the LEDs, in mass manufactured lights to salvage, that may come with a multi function regulator circuit, switch, aspheric lens, silicon boot, heat sink, etc for under $6.00 US!


----------



## shao.fu.tzer (Oct 31, 2012)

XR-E? Seriously? Let's just recommend him a Lux III while we're at it... XR-E is dead technology as far as I'm concerned and the XP-E isn't far behind. They were fantastic for the time, but outdated is an understatement. If you don't care about heat, low run-times, beam artifacts, etc... then go XR-E - I still have XP-E lights that I use. They throw almost as well and the beam pattern won't drive you crazy... There was a period of time that if you wanted to build a dedicated thrower, XR-E was the only way to go, but there are better options now if you do your research. I actually built a drop in for an LEO buddy using an XT-E and it seems to provide a great combination of spill and throw with greatly improved efficiency. XT-Es get no love here, but I believe that they're an untapped source of awesomeness. 4 XT-Es in series pulling .4 or so amps per emitter behind an optic anyone???


----------



## Flea Bag (Oct 31, 2012)

shao.fu.tzer said:


> XR-E? Seriously? Let's just recommend him a Lux III while we're at it... XR-E is dead technology as far as I'm concerned and the XP-E isn't far behind. They were fantastic for the time, but outdated is an understatement. If you don't care about heat, low run-times, beam artifacts, etc... then go XR-E - I still have XP-E lights that I use. They throw almost as well and the beam pattern won't drive you crazy... There was a period of time that if you wanted to build a dedicated thrower, XR-E was the only way to go, but there are better options now if you do your research. I actually built a drop in for an LEO buddy using an XT-E and it seems to provide a great combination of spill and throw with greatly improved efficiency. XT-Es get no love here, but I believe that they're an untapped source of awesomeness. 4 XT-Es in series pulling .4 or so amps per emitter behind an optic anyone???



XR-Es aren't that bad and comparing them with the Lux III is overdoing it a bit, but I get your bottom line that is they are one of the oldest Crees to be widely used in flashlights. Mind you, the Malkoff M60 is still a very decent drop-in and if I were to choose an M61W or an M60W, I'd still take the M60W. To be fair, the Malkoff is an exceptional application of the XR-E and while other applications of the XR-E are better handled with XP-E, G, G2, XM-L or whatever, the XR-E still isn't that far behind.

For example, I was looking around at the Malkoff line-up to find a replacement for my M60 bike light. What I ended up finding was that LED technology (single emitter that is) still produces a significant amount of heat at the 300 to 400 OTF level to the extent that I didn't see a large enough reason to get an XP-G or XP-G2 or XM-L based bike light unless I go multi-emitter. I'm quite sensitive to the heat produced by my lights and to have a significant improvement over the M60's 235 OTF lumens, I'll be looking at over 350 lumens (50% increase) to really get enough throw and output to consider it a worthwhile improvement but at that output, the XP-G2 still produces quite a lot of heat, if not more than my M60.

So while there are more efficient emitters out there, the package of small footprint and still decent output means the XR-E still has its place.


----------



## sunny_nites (Nov 2, 2012)

Here is a quicky comparison of the XR-E and XP-E.

Two identical flashlights, XP-E on left and XR-E on right.






With the aspheric lens back on.
At tightest focus you can see the ring artifacts around the XR-E that shao.fu.tzer mentioned. Otherwise the performance is pretty much equal.
The XR-E does focus a bit cleaner but that may have something to do with the larger dome over the LED or maybe the distance the die is from the base of the lens but just a guess.


----------



## Flea Bag (Nov 2, 2012)

Thanks for the illustration!


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Nov 2, 2012)

sunny_nites said:


> Here is a quicky comparison of the XR-E and XP-E.
> 
> Two identical flashlights, XP-E on left and XR-E on right.
> 
> ...




There's a larger difference in size between the 2 LED's than I thought. The XR-E looks about twice the size of the XP-E. The XP-E's in my 3 Thrunite Ti's seem to work very well, and those lights are just as bright as the Olight/iTp EOS i3 that I own, and the run times seem to be similar, even though the i3 has an XP-G. Also, even though the heads on all those lights are the same diameter, the XP-E Thrunite Ti's throw much better than the i3 and have cleaner beams too for the most part. They obviously throw better because the XP-E is smaller than the XP-G in the i3. But I cant tell that the XP-E is any less desirable in these lights.


----------



## sunny_nites (Nov 5, 2012)

I have more experience with aspherics than with reflectors so I can't really comment on the throw using a reflector. But, what I have noticed when using an aspheric lens is that you can position the lens much closer to a XR-E or XP-E than you can with a XP-G. 

ie, you can build a shorter flashlight using one of the older LEDs as compared to the newer, wider die LEDs.


----------

