# New 2nd Generation Cree XP-G2 LED!



## jasonck08

I just heard that Cree is releasing the XP-G Generation 2, or XP-G2.

According to the spec sheets 85C @ 350mA:

3000K XP-G is 98 Lumens and XP-G2 is 117 (+19%)

4000K XP-G is 112 Lumens and XP-G2 is 130 (+16%)

5700K XP-G is 121 Lumens and XP-G2 is 138 (+14%)

The other main difference I see is the viewing angle is smaller. XP-G its 125 degrees and its 115 degrees on the XP-G2. So this should translate to improved throw by about 20-25% (because of the increased output and a smaller beam).

Whats interesting is I looked up the Lumen value of the XP-G2 to the XM-L CW @ 85C and both are 138. So it looks like we have XM-L like efficiency in a smaller package with better throw! :twothumbs


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK

Any word on Vf's? Would love to see it's entire rated current range sit under at least 3.3V


----------



## jmpaul320

:rock: excellent!


----------



## PapaLumen

I just saw these too, got a mail from cutter. Only Vf details are 2.9v @350mA, 25c. Mouser has them, top bin is R5 I think? http://www.mouser.com/cree-xlampXPG2/

139L @ 85c. Normal xp-g R5 is 139L @ 25c.

Lower viewing angle sounds interesting...


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK

PapaLumen said:


> Only Vf details are 2.9v @350mA, 25c.


Looks like the old one was about 3.0v @350mA, so I guess there must be at least _some_ drop in Vf across the board...


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond

I got the Cutter email too. Gains are claiming to be 16-19% in the neutral tint range. Eager to see what this LED new LED has to offer. I see a lot of modding and upgrading in my future if the claims are for real.

I am really glad to see that Cree got around to upgrading the XP-G line rather than replacing it with another.


----------



## znomit




----------



## jasonck08

It will be interesting to see how it scales at higher currents. No data yet on cree's LED comparison tool. The XM-L for example as a higher % increase in lumens at higher current ranges over the XP-G. I hope the same is true for the XP-G2.

XP-G 2 has the same size package and is compatible with existing reflectors and optics! Should be an easy mod for existing lights, and an easy upgrade for existing manufacturers.


----------



## Th232

Interesting, they've bumped up the dome size a bit. Wonder how much that contributes to the changes, and how much is actual die improvements.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond

It would stand to reason that the smaller projection angle is related to the new lens, but I can't imagine that a lens would have impact on the actual flux output.


----------



## Lynx_Arc

I wonder if one day a decade from now the Vf of LEDs will be about such that they won't even use drivers off 2 1.5v batteries on them just like light bulbs at 2.4v.


----------



## ahorton

My guess is that throw won't be any better because it's probably a bigger die.

Just a guess though. 

I'm really hoping for a lower Vf across the curve!


----------



## monkeyboy

jasonck08 said:


> The other main difference I see is the viewing angle is smaller. XP-G its 125 degrees and its 115 degrees on the XP-G2. So this should translate to improved throw by about 20-25% (because of the increased output and a smaller beam).



Smaller emitting angle generally means LESS throw in reflectored lights as less of the light is hitting the reflector.


----------



## mvyrmnd

monkeyboy said:


> Smaller emitting angle generally means LESS throw in reflectored lights as less of the light is hitting the reflector.



I was thinking that, too. You'd need a deeper reflector to get the same throw as the 125° emitter.

You would, however, get more lumens through an aspheric lens.


----------



## moozooh

Oh my... that's no less than great news! Starting to look forward to SC601 and H503. :laughing:


----------



## frosty

Can someone comment on how these specs compare to the XT-E.


----------



## jasonck08

monkeyboy said:


> Smaller emitting angle generally means LESS throw in reflectored lights as less of the light is hitting the reflector.



Then why would the XP-E which also has a 115 degree viewing angle throw better than the XP-G?

IF the die is larger than the current gen XP-G then that could mean less throw...


----------



## mvyrmnd

jasonck08 said:


> Then why would the XP-E which also has a 115 degree viewing angle throw better than the XP-G?
> 
> IF the die is larger than the current gen XP-G then that could mean less throw...



The XP-E has a narrower angle, but also has a smaller die, meaning higher surface brightness (for the same lumens), meaning more throw.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

Smaller source = more of its light is 'in focus' to a lens or reflector.
Wider dispersion angle means more light hits a reflector, and less hits a lens at a given distance.


[off-topic recap for those who don't crawl CPF]

Improving the lens can greatly increase emitted light. The dome ONLY exists to extract more light. Any light that hits the inside of the dome at too shallow an angle will reflect internally, restriking phosphor and decreasing output (And slightly affecting tint). The use of a lens (primary optic) increases the apparent source size of the LED (Worse for intensity), while increasing light emission. This primary optic also changes the angle of emission, as seen above.

De-doming an LED decreases source size and decreases light that can leave the LED/air interface. If done properly, it decreases output and increases throw. If done improperly, damaged optical silicone further decreases output.

This will be interesting, but I hope for similar improvement to the XR-E package - I haven't yet played with my XB-Ds (XP-E replacement).


----------



## foxtrot824

It looks the LED dome is larger in diameter (like the XT-E). I'm wondering if these will focus well with Carclo optics, for example the 20mm triple.


----------



## mds82

I definately want to see how this stacks up to the XT-E. I'm planning on making a Huge purchase in the next 1-2 months and would love to see the differences


----------



## DMC

Warning dumb question

Looking at Cutter's Cree slide are the XP-G2 R3s running hotter using 350mA at *85c* than the equivalent XP-G R5s using 350mA at *25c*? If the XP-G2's higher temperature at 350mA of *85c* is really true then would this mean that the XP-G2 maximum forward current would be a lot less than 1500mA maybe about 1000mA?


----------



## Lynx_Arc

DMC said:


> Warning dumb question
> 
> Looking at Cutter's Cree slide are the XP-G2 R3s running hotter using 350mA at *85c* than the equivalent XP-G R5s using 350mA at *25c*? If the XP-G2's higher temperature at 350mA of *85c* is really true then would this mean that the XP-G2 maximum forward current would be a lot less than 1500mA maybe about 1000mA?


Check post 7, it lists them both the same
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?340892-New-2nd-Generation-Cree-XP-G2-LED!&p=3980633&viewfull=1#post3980633


----------



## AnAppleSnail

DMC said:


> 1. Are the XP-G2 R3s running hotter using 350mA at *85c* than the equivalent XP-G R5s using 350mA at *25c*?
> 
> 2. Would this mean that the XP-G2 maximum forward current would be a lot less than 1500mA maybe about 1000mA?



Short answer: No they aren't, and no it isn't.

Cree has changed their standard test die temperature from 25C to 85C. Their stated reason was to better match real-world conditions. This change has nothing to do with how the LED performs (Any more than changing your ruler alters how strong a beam is). The cutter chart says "Comparing these different LEDs at different temperatures and then extrapolating based on temperature/performance changes, they are pretty well equal. The forward current rating is probably not changed, although details of the performance curve might (Certainly with respect to output, and therefore probably with respect to temperature vs. energy), though I can't say by how much.

It is interesting to note that this "XP-G2 R3 flux bin" LED would be binned to the R5 flux bin if tested at the 25C temperature. Cree is putting a harsher standard on their LEDs for the reasons I cited above. Presumably downgrading paper performance to better-match real-world conditions will give their sales followups better ammunition.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond

85*C is just the direction Cree has gone with re-binning their LEDs.

Historically if you looked at Crees binning you would see measurements at 25*C, basically room temperature, a temperature that only exists at the emitter right before it's been on for the briefest moment. Once the emitter temperature increases, relative output deminishes. If you look at the Cree PDF you will see that a relative output of 100% at 25*C can drop to 85-90% as temperatures rise to 85*C.

The re-binning, although confusing, is actually more accurate because you get a truer idea of how much light the LED will produce while being power on. There is no need to de-rate the output of a light by a factor of .8 to .9 to take into consideration heat losses among others.

It does however create confusion when comparing new/old Cree leds and also comparing with other brands which rate their lumens at 25*C.


----------



## DMC

Thanks AnAppleSnail and ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond for the explanations.

Now this statement at http://flashlightwiki.com/Cree#XB-D 

_"This LED is binned at an operating temperature of 85° C instead of 25°, so in order to directly compare its output to other LED's that are typically binned at 25 degrees, the numbers in the table below have been increased by 14% (see XB-D output for the 85° numbers)."_

also makes more sense. :candle:


----------



## moozooh

Edit: Nevermind, I can't read. Got too excited.


----------



## IMSabbel

Is it only me or do they use a different substrate material? I mean, the thermal resitance is listed as the same, but the PCB seems to be brown/gray(which hints ceramic) instead of green...


----------



## MichaelW

jasonck08 said:


> IF the die is larger than the current gen XP-G then that could mean less throw...


But if this a 3mm^2 die, then it will throw better than the xm-l.

But if it was a 3mm^2 die, shouldn't the maximum drive current be roughly 2 amps?


----------



## AnAppleSnail

MichaelW said:


> But if this a 3mm^2 die, then it will throw better than the xm-l.
> 
> But if it was a 3mm^2 die, shouldn't the maximum drive current be roughly 2 amps?



You're oversimplifying both of these statements, but it really only matters on the first. Throw is based on a few things. A simplification of throw is [Surface Brightness] x [Amount of surface focused by optic or reflector]. Most LEDs have primary optics built in. The XP-G2 has a rather different primary optic, which affects the amount of surface which will be focused in the reflector or optic. Lenses will benefit, while TIR and reflectors will suffer, in short. I predict it to throw a bit better in aspherics than the XM-L, and a bit worse in compact reflectors. Big lenses or reflectors will minimize those differences, and leave the 14% brightness boost.

The drive current is broadly increased with increasing die size, but also affected by construction and material robustness. You do get more water through a fatter pipe, but you can also build a pipe to take more pressure.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

imsabbel, I think they've used ceramic boards for their LED manufacturing since the XR series, if not earlier. It might just be a different color "solder mask" used to differentiate G1 from G2.

I do remember seeing the die mounted directly on top of a large SiC diode back in the XR days, wonder if they still do that but on a thinner scale, or if they have switched to moving the esd out of the package or off to the side of the die.

I don't think it's a larger die, but then again, they have changed dice size before and not told anybody...


----------



## easilyled

AnAppleSnail said:


> You're oversimplifying both of these statements, but it really only matters on the first. Throw is based on a few things. A simplification of throw is [Surface Brightness] x [Amount of surface focused by optic or reflector]. Most LEDs have primary optics built in. The XP-G2 has a rather different primary optic, which affects the amount of surface which will be focused in the reflector or optic. Lenses will benefit, while TIR and reflectors will suffer, in short. I predict it to throw a bit better in aspherics than the XM-L, and a bit worse in compact reflectors. Big lenses or reflectors will minimize those differences, and leave the 14% brightness boost.
> 
> The drive current is broadly increased with increasing die size, but also affected by construction and material robustness. You do get more water through a fatter pipe, but you can also build a pipe to take more pressure.



XREs also had narrower viewing angles and had special reflectors designed for them (by McGizmo and other manufacturers)

These reflectors were relatively narrower and deeper than the equivalent reflectors for other emitters with wider viewing angles around at the time like the SSC-P4.

So there is no reason why a change in reflector design cannot be optimised for the XPG-G2 either.


----------



## saabluster

So there seems to be some conflicting info here and I don't have the time to do the proper analysis but let's just say I was expecting the release of this LED but the pictures supplied in Cutter's email don't look like what I expected. Here is a picture of the DA1400.






Note that this die is the same size as the EZ1400 which is in the regular XP-G. Since this die is also the one that is the embodiment of the "SC³ technology" it stands to reason it is the die used in the XP-G2. The pictures in Cutter's email however show a die with top bond wires and a flat substrate. If the XP-G2 in fact turns out to have this flat substrate instead of the faceted DA chip then I will be a happy man as I am no fan of the DA chips as their optical characteristics stink for our applications. The DA chip should have much better thermal characteristics than the EZ based XP-G so the fact that the comparison chart shows equivalent performance in that area it would make one believe that either the data provided is incomplete/wrong or the XP-G2 is indeed the more traditional flat substrate.


----------



## jasonck08

monkeyboy said:


> Smaller emitting angle generally means LESS throw in reflectored lights as less of the light is hitting the reflector.





mvyrmnd said:


> I was thinking that, too. You'd need a deeper reflector to get the same throw as the 125° emitter.
> 
> You would, however, get more lumens through an aspheric lens.



I'm sorry but I think both of you guys are still incorrect, that a wider viewing angle means better throw.

The XR-E EZ1000 out throws the XP-E for example. Both LED's use the same exact sized die 0.98^2. The difference? The viewing angle. The XR-E has a 90 degree viewing angle and XP-E has a 115 degree viewing angle.

Think about it logically. How difficult would it be to focus an LED with a 180 degree viewing angle? Quite difficult. Much easier to focus a narrow viewing angle to a tight beam than a wide viewing angle to a tight beam.


----------



## IMSabbel

Well, basically its a bit roundabout: Typically a lense with a dome with a smaller viewing angle will have a smaller apparent die size.


----------



## monkeyboy

jasonck08 said:


> I'm sorry but I think both of you guys are still incorrect, that a wider viewing angle means better throw.
> 
> The XR-E EZ1000 out throws the XP-E for example. Both LED's use the same exact sized die 0.98^2. The difference? The viewing angle. The XR-E has a 90 degree viewing angle and XP-E has a 115 degree viewing angle.
> 
> Think about it logically. How difficult would it be to focus an LED with a 180 degree viewing angle? Quite difficult. Much easier to focus a narrow viewing angle to a tight beam than a wide viewing angle to a tight beam.




I don't think it does. It's just that XR-E lights tend to have deeper reflectors.
The old Luxeon I side emitter had something like 180 degree emission and gave crazy throw in a shallow reflector with very little side spill.


----------



## ergotelis

I Think i was managing about 42,000 lux with a xp-e R2 and a mag [email protected],05amp with the classic 3x7135 setup. The Tiablo A10 with an xr-e, used to have a higher diameter and deeper reflector to catch about the same numbers of lux. Xp-E definitely throws, it is all about the reflector. And xr-e throws, but needs a different design reflector. 
Anyway, ordered 10 of them from cutter couldn't resist! Then i will see how does it performs, hope i won't be disappointed! I hope it can catch the same throw as a classic xp-g , at the same diameter reflectors!


----------



## fyrstormer

mvyrmnd said:


> I was thinking that, too. You'd need a deeper reflector to get the same throw as the 125° emitter.
> 
> You would, however, get more lumens through an aspheric lens.


The throw can't be worse than stuffing an XM-L into the same light. At least the smaller emitter die (relative to the XM-L) means more of the light is emitted at the reflector's focal point.


----------



## fyrstormer

jasonck08 said:


> I'm sorry but I think both of you guys are still incorrect, that a wider viewing angle means better throw.
> 
> The XR-E EZ1000 out throws the XP-E for example. Both LED's use the same exact sized die 0.98^2. The difference? The viewing angle. The XR-E has a 90 degree viewing angle and XP-E has a 115 degree viewing angle.
> 
> Think about it logically. How difficult would it be to focus an LED with a 180 degree viewing angle? Quite difficult. Much easier to focus a narrow viewing angle to a tight beam than a wide viewing angle to a tight beam.


On a reflector light, the hotspot part of the beam is made of light emitted from the center of the die and reflected by the reflector. The flood part of the beam is made of light that emanates directly out the front of the light without reflecting off anything. The transition between the hotspot and the flood is made of light emitted from the edges of the die and reflected by the reflector, but not focused properly because wasn't emitted near the reflector's focal point.

So, the more light that hits the reflector, the brighter the hotspot and transition areas will be. That translates to better throw. Sorry, you're wrong.


----------



## Colonel Sanders

:thinking:


----------



## AnAppleSnail

fyrstormer said:


> So, the more light that hits the reflector, the brighter the hotspot and transition areas will be. That translates to better throw. Sorry, you're wrong.



More generally, the more light that hits the secondary optic or reflector, the more light is in a beam. All light that does not hit the optic or reflector is spill (Or lost inside the light head).

The smaller the apparent source, the more light will be in the 'center' of the hot spot; the larger the source, the more light is outside the 'center' of the beam. This is because reflectors and optics focus perfect points into perfect beams of light (See: Parabola). An imperfect point makes an imperfect beam of light (With diffusion and the hotspot/transition/spill) as seen in flashlights.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

saabluster said:


> Here is a picture of the DA1400.



If this is the die used in the G2, then it would explain the numbers for the wider viewing angle. 

Also, on the topic of the off topic discussion, the farther away the point on a reflector is from the emitting source, the more accurately reflected the light from the source will be from that point. This is because as you get farther and farther away from the source, it looks more and more like a point, which is easier to focus. So, more light hitting a reflector may increase the corona or the round part that fills in the sides of the square, but not always will it mean more throw, since "throw" takes into account lux, divergence, and the gradient between hotspot and spill, if applicable.


----------



## PapaLumen

Max current for the G2 is 1500ma btw, same as normal xp-g.


----------



## bigchelis

From my understanding the XR-E R2 90 degree view angle is what made it throw better than XP-E R4's. I Build identical P60 drop-ins and had some misc lights. All things being equal the smaller view angle XR-E R2 always threw more.

So, hopefully the new XP-G can offer tighter beam in P60 drop-ins and being more efficient more easily hit 400~450 real OTF lumens. 

I can already picture this new emitter driven at 2A bonded directly to a copper slug heatsink and a 3in SMO reflector...!!!!!!

bigC


----------



## fyrstormer

bigchelis said:


> From my understanding the XR-E R2 90 degree view angle is what made it throw better than XP-E R4's. I Build identical P60 drop-ins and had some misc lights. All things being equal the smaller view angle XR-E R2 always threw more.


The XR-E's 90 degree radiation pattern meant that its _spill_ was tighter, because the normal radiation pattern was pre-collimated by the built-in optic above the die. However, that optic had the same effect on ALL the light coming from the die, so the brightness and tightness of a reflector-generated hotspot wasn't affected significantly, since the hotspot radiation pattern is so narrow to start with. (The XR-E's radiation pattern was 25% narrower than a normal LED; if you apply that same multiplier to a ten-degree hotspot, you'll only tighten the hotspot by a couple degrees.)

In fact, the _brightness_ of the hotspot would've been _negatively_ affected by the XR-E's pre-collimating optic if general-purpose reflector had been used, because pre-collimating the light caused less to hit the reflector. To compensate for that effect and maintain a bright hotspot using the XR-E emitter, a narrower reflector was required, to reach further into the 90 degree radiation pattern and redirect more of the light straight forward. That's why XR-E specific reflectors are so much narrower than general-purpose reflectors.


----------



## saabluster

So this is a new development it would seem despite them saying simply that this is the "SC³ technology" like they have been using in the recently unveiled LEDs like the XB-D and XT-E which had the faceted die and the flip-chip. Up till now all of Cree's flat substrate dies have not been flip-chip and yet you can clearly see the positive connects to the top side. Just ordered some of these new XP-G2 from Mouser as they have them in stock and at a cheaper price than Cutter. Plus they have quantity discounts.(hello Cutter) I am genuinely excited about these unlike the past two or three releases which have had horrible optical characteristics. Be interesting to see what the current spreaders look like as you can't see them in any of the pictures I've seen. I'll just have to tear one apart I guess


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Please do! 

With flip chip, the active region is mounted closer to the thermal pad, innit? And couple that with what should be a lack of bond wires, this might be ripe for overdriving!


----------



## blasterman

This is the same 'facet' technology that premiered with the XT-E, correct? I'm assuming the facets improve current handling in some way, but wondering if somebody had some more details from a technical perspective on how this works.


----------



## PapaLumen

Cree datasheet is up - http://www.cree.com/led-components-... Modules/XLamp/Data and Binning/XLampXPG2.pdf

Vf - 350ma/85c/2.8v, 700ma/85c/2.9v, 1000ma/85c/3.0v, 1500ma/85c/3.1v.

Cool white max lumen @ 1500ma - 458lm.


----------



## bose301s

blasterman said:


> This is the same 'facet' technology that premiered with the XT-E, correct? I'm assuming the facets improve current handling in some way, but wondering if somebody had some more details from a technical perspective on how this works.


Nope, nothing to do with current. Everything to do with light extraction.


----------



## blasterman

Interesting. Given the facets aren't ordered like the serrated rows in a knife but rather in a polygon shape this makes sense. Yet the facets are pointed at each other.... I'm Sure there's a white paper somewhere on this if somebody has a link. Then again many other LEDs have folds when examined under a macro lens.


----------



## bose301s

blasterman said:


> Interesting. Given the facets aren't ordered like the serrated rows in a knife but rather in a polygon shape this makes sense. Yet the facets are pointed at each other.... I'm Sure there's a white paper somewhere on this if somebody has a link. Then again many other LEDs have folds when examined under a macro lens.


It has to do with Snell's Law regarding Total Internal Reflection at an interface between 2 materials with dissimilar Indices of Refraction. Basically there is a critical angle of incidence where all light hitting the interface is totally internally reflected. Adding the facets helps lessen this effect hence extracting more light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law#Total_internal_reflection_and_critical_angle


----------



## moozooh

PapaLumen said:


> Cool white max lumen @ 1500ma - 458lm.


Which is 83% of XM-L T6 and 78% of U2, both unadjusted to higher binning temperatures. It looks like CW XP-G2 is more or less equal to XM-L T6 at max power, but can't go as far as the latter.

Would be interesting to see some compact 400..440 lm NiMH-based throwers based on it, like the Nitecore EA2.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Blasterman, I believe the active region is the layer that is very close to the mounting pad below it, and the thick, shaped structure is the substrate on which the active region is grown. Think of that substrate as a clear crystal that the active layer can be deposited onto where it will continue crystalizing in the same molecular organization as the substrate's crystal structure.


----------



## IMSabbel

Hm. Looking at the data sheet, the output is still increasing nicely at 1.5A. I am curious just how much current you can squeeze into one of them...


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

From the datasheet pics, I wouldn't guess too much more than the original, if any. That is simply going on the number of bond wires, though. Perhaps they are using thicker bonding wires, though, who knows. I wonder how much those mu analysis' teardowns costed, like http://www.muanalysis.com/_documents/publications/Teardown%20reports/Cree-XLAMP-LED%20Lamp-Teardown-Report-short%20version.pdf


----------



## saabluster

IMSabbel said:


> Hm. Looking at the data sheet, the output is still increasing nicely at 1.5A. I am curious just how much current you can squeeze into one of them...



Just received mine today. I'll let you know.


----------



## PapaLumen

moozooh said:


> Which is 83% of XM-L T6 and 78% of U2, both unadjusted to higher binning temperatures.



Yep so probably more like 90%+ and 85%+


----------



## PapaLumen

saabluster said:


> Just received mine today. I'll let you know.



Cool, How high will you go... :devil:


----------



## deadrx7conv

Will there be an XM-L2?


----------



## saabluster

I don't have a lot of time right now so don't expect the fancy graphs. Just a quick test of it mounted to an MCPCB which in turn is mounted to a block of copper. 

This is an R5 flux bin.

A-------Lumens

.1------95
.2------129
.3------167
.4------197
.5------232
.6------264
.7------289
.8------319
.9------340
1.0-----367
1.1-----393
1.2-----411
1.3-----432
1.4-----448
1.5-----466
1.6-----484
1.7-----496
1.8-----510
1.9-----519
2.0-----527
2.1-----536
2.2-----541
2.3-----546
2.4-----548
2.5-----549
2.6-----548

Keep in mind this test is room temp not the 85C test which would be more real world but considering we all still have in mind the specs of old LEDs tested at room temp I figured it would make the comparison easier. 

My recommendation is no more than 2A if you want to push it harder than spec and are using an MCPCB. I will also be testing one mounted direct to copper soon.

And no I did not capture the Vf. Sorry.


----------



## ergotelis

May i guess that you did a mistake in the 0,1amp reading? 95 lumens??!!I think it is 65, you pressed wrong button?

edit1:
Anyway, we can see here that with 0,5 amper we get the same performance as with a xr-e Q5 bin @1 amper.And less vF,that means same lumens with less than half consumption. Nice!

edit2:
Do you see here any new record in the category lm/watt in a consumer product? What is the top efficiency? Is it more than 180lm/watt @ 0,1-0,3amp???Am i estimating well its performance?

edit3:
The lumen increase from 0,7 to 1,3 amp is not declining always. Am i missing something or is it just a power supply inaccuracy?


----------



## BigRiz

deadrx7conv said:


> Will there be an XM-L2?



One can only hope.. an XM-L with a 15% (or whatever) improvement in efficacy would be most welcome!


----------



## djozz

Saablusters data in a simple graph, just because I wanted to see it:




XPG-2currentlumens by djozz1, on Flickr

Looks like the lumens/watt ratio drops quite rapidly when current goes up.
djozz


----------



## mds82

deadrx7conv said:


> Will there be an XM-L2?



From what i hear Yes. There will be an XM-L2 and also a XP-E2


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK

djozz said:


> Looks like the lumens/watt ratio drops quite rapidly when current goes up.


Yeah, wonder if they just rate them to 1.5Amps 'cause there's not much point after that? Seems that after say 1.7 - 2Amp the increases aren't worth the effort.
Thanks for the graph, and thanks Saabluster for taking the effort.


----------



## wquiles

RoGuE_StreaK said:


> Thanks for the graph, and thanks Saabluster for taking the effort.



+1


----------



## jasonck08

moozooh said:


> Which is 83% of XM-L T6 and 78% of U2, both unadjusted to higher binning temperatures. It looks like CW XP-G2 is more or less equal to XM-L T6 at max power, but can't go as far as the latter.



According to the cree tool:
-------------------------------
1.5A @ 85C
-------------------------------

XP-G R5 = 400 Lumens
XP-G2 R5 = 458 Lumens
XM-L-T6 = 478 Lumens
XM-L-U2 = 512 Lumens

-------------------------------
1A @ 85C
-------------------------------

XP-G R5 = 301 Lumens
XP-G2 R5 = 338 Lumens
XM-L-T6 = 337 Lumens
XM-L-U2 = 361 Lumens

-------------------------------
0.7A @ 85C
-------------------------------

XP-G R5 = 224 Lumens
XP-G2 R5 = 254 Lumens
XM-L-T6 = 243 Lumens
XM-L-U2 = 260 Lumens

So it looks like the XP-G2 is a better option over the XM-L T6 when it comes to currents <1A. And also approximate lumens for the XP-G2 @ 25C @ 1.5A is 528.


----------



## Th232

Interesting, although note that Michael's said that the XP-G2 was mounted to a MCPCB and that he'll test one mounted directly onto copper later. I'm more interested in that test, since if you're really wanting to push it that far past the recommended ratings, a MCPCB is out of the question IMHO.


----------



## saabluster

ergotelis said:


> May i guess that you did a mistake in the 0,1amp reading? 95 lumens??!!I think it is 65, you pressed wrong button? edit1: Anyway, we can see here that with 0,5 amper we get the same performance as with a xr-e Q5 bin @1 amper.And less vF,that means same lumens with less than half consumption. Nice! edit2: Do you see here any new record in the category lm/watt in a consumer product? What is the top efficiency? Is it more than 180lm/watt @ 0,1-0,3amp???Am i estimating well its performance? edit3: The lumen increase from 0,7 to 1,3 amp is not declining always. Am i missing something or is it just a power supply inaccuracy?



I would disregard the last numbers I posted. It was a quick test like I said. I just bought a new power supply and I trusted too much what the readout was telling me. Not liking this new PS very much. grr. So I used a meter to see exactly how much current the LED was seeing and reran the test. This time with it attached straight to copper. These numbers are much more accurate.






I want to emphasize that the higher numbers are *not* achievable in a flashlight unless active cooling is used to keep the junction temps down. The lower you go in current the more representative these figures are going to be to real world flashlight usage. Still it is amazing to see this relatively tiny LED putting out over 1000 lumens. 1033 at it's peak. I chilled the LED to about 45F and got a reading of 1100 lumens even @4.91A.

.02 9
.08 36
.17 74
.2 87
.28 122
.38 163
.46 194 
.57 233
.67 268
.75 294
.85 327
.93 353
1.03 383
1.13 412
1.21 436
1.32 465
1.4 487
1.5 513
1.6 537
1.68 557
1.76 575
1.87 600
1.97 624
2.07 646
2.15 664
2.2 673
2.33 699
2.43 718
2.53 738
2.62 755
2.72 773
2.8 786 
2.9 800
3.0 816
3.09 829
3.15 839
3.2 847
3.27 858
3.38 876
3.48 890
3.57 903
3.66 914
3.75 925
3.85 937
3.95 949
4.03 960
4.13 970
4.22 979
4.32 988
4.43 999
4.5 1006 
4.61 1016
4.69 1021
4.8 1028
4.91 1033
4.99 1032


----------



## ergotelis

I think that you results now seem more logical and amazing at higher amperage.We see that this led is another leap in small form factor leds. If you properly cool the led, it has similar performance to a xm-l for currents up to 1,5amp and maybe more.
Still waiting for mine to come from cutter.

THanks for the effort for both tests!!!

edit: Quick question, did you manage to keep the led cool all over the test @78F? Directly attached to copper means excellent cooling, but i think that the led will still heat up a lot more than than 78 F.


----------



## monkeyboy

ergotelis said:


> Quick question, did you manage to keep the led cool all over the test @78F? Directly attached to copper means excellent cooling, but i think that the led will still heat up a lot more than than 78 F.



78F was the ambient temperature (temp of the surroundings) not the die temp!


@saabluster, Thanks for doing these tests. These are interesting results. How was the emitter attached to the copper heatsink? Was it soldered on? Did you file down the emitter at all?


----------



## ergotelis

monkeyboy said:


> 78F was the ambient temperature (temp of the surroundings) not the die temp!
> 
> 
> @saabluster, Thanks for doing these tests. These are interesting results. How was the emitter attached to the copper heatsink? Was it soldered on? Did you file down the emitter at all?



Well i wasn't sure because he mentioned that he did some extreme cooling too later! So, all we need is a good copper pcb, like the one in xm-l, to manage to transfer the heat right!


----------



## IMSabbel

Damn. 
If you drive it at 2.5 or 3A, it would make a hell of a thrower, especially with an aspheric.


----------



## saabluster

ergotelis said:


> I think that you results now seem more logical and amazing at higher amperage.We see that this led is another leap in small form factor leds. If you properly cool the led, it has similar performance to a xm-l for currents up to 1,5amp and maybe more.
> Still waiting for mine to come from cutter.
> 
> THanks for the effort for both tests!!!
> 
> edit: Quick question, did you manage to keep the led cool all over the test @78F? Directly attached to copper means excellent cooling, but i think that the led will still heat up a lot more than than 78 F.


 
The readings were taken with the LED at 78F. In order to keep the readings consistent I allowed time in between each reading for the heatsink temp to fall back to ambient. I then turned on the PS and took the peak reading before the die could warm up appreciably. For this reason even having the LED mounted to an mcpcb would not have changed the numbers. So don't take the massive current levels reached here as meaning it is possible due to the copper. 



monkeyboy said:


> 78F was the ambient temperature (temp of the surroundings) not the die temp!
> 
> 
> @saabluster, Thanks for doing these tests. These are interesting results. How was the emitter attached to the copper heatsink? Was it soldered on? Did you file down the emitter at all?


The emitter was direct soldered to the copper. No modifications were done to the LED. 



ergotelis said:


> Well i wasn't sure because he mentioned that he did some extreme cooling too later! So, all we need is a good copper pcb, like the one in xm-l, to manage to transfer the heat right!


No I didn't say I did any extreme cooling. Only that if you expect to see these results in practice in a light it will take active cooling to keep the junction temps down where they were for this test.


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK

Am I reading the Cutter site right, that the XP-G2 is actually _cheaper_ than the XP-G, right off the bat? You'd think they'd be getting rid of their old stock first?

saabluster, you didn't happen to take Vf readings as well did you? Not that the data isn't brilliant as it is...


----------



## saabluster

RoGuE_StreaK said:


> Am I reading the Cutter site right, that the XP-G2 is actually _cheaper_ than the XP-G, right off the bat? You'd think they'd be getting rid of their old stock first?
> 
> saabluster, you didn't happen to take Vf readings as well did you? Not that the data isn't brilliant as it is...



No I did not capture those.


----------



## SemiMan

XP-E2 = XTE I believe.


----------



## SemiMan

Was this using CRee PCT?

I am not seeing the XP-G2 as an option when I log in ... or MT-G2 for that matter.

Semiman






jasonck08 said:


> According to the cree tool:
> -------------------------------
> 1.5A @ 85C
> -------------------------------
> 
> XP-G R5 = 400 Lumens
> XP-G2 R5 = 458 Lumens
> XM-L-T6 = 478 Lumens
> XM-L-U2 = 512 Lumens
> 
> -------------------------------
> 1A @ 85C
> -------------------------------
> 
> XP-G R5 = 301 Lumens
> XP-G2 R5 = 338 Lumens
> XM-L-T6 = 337 Lumens
> XM-L-U2 = 361 Lumens
> 
> -------------------------------
> 0.7A @ 85C
> -------------------------------
> 
> XP-G R5 = 224 Lumens
> XP-G2 R5 = 254 Lumens
> XM-L-T6 = 243 Lumens
> XM-L-U2 = 260 Lumens
> 
> So it looks like the XP-G2 is a better option over the XM-L T6 when it comes to currents <1A. And also approximate lumens for the XP-G2 @ 25C @ 1.5A is 528.


----------



## saabluster

SemiMan said:


> Was this using CRee PCT?
> 
> I am not seeing the XP-G2 as an option when I log in ... or MT-G2 for that matter.
> 
> Semiman


That is from page two of the data sheet.


----------



## SemiMan

saabluster said:


> That is from page two of the data sheet.



I had assumed you meant PCT when you said "According to the cree tool:"

Semiman


----------



## saabluster

SemiMan said:


> I had assumed you meant PCT when you said "According to the cree tool:"
> 
> Semiman


Well that was Jason that said that not me but I assumed he got the XP-G2 figures from the data sheet and the rest from the PCT.


----------



## ergotelis

Just got mine


----------



## tstartrekdude

Thanks for the pics ergotelis, I went ahead and rehosted your images on ingur for toughs who prefer it. http://imgur.com/a/DZOqx


----------



## ergotelis

All right guys this is the first test data from the 10 leds.

-This led is similar to the samsung 3535 chip in core, the silicone is a bit different.



You can see pictures from both leds. In that post, for those who don't know, you can see a xp-e,xp-g, xt-e, nichia 219, samsung 3535 warm&cool, a xm-l and finally two xp-g2 leds. I will post another picture,(when i find my ssc P7) with xr-e ez900,xr-e old core, xr-e ez1000 silver, mc-e, sst50 ,rebel , dedomed xm-ls, and some luxeon older.

-THe best to the worst in the 10 xp-g2 , the performance difference is only 5%, this is pretty good, @1,05amp with 7135 based driver.
-The worst xp-g2 to one of the best (from cutter) xp-g S2 2T led @1,05amp too is 10% better for the xp-g2.
-Xp-g2 seems to work just right with all xp-g reflectors. No problem. It focuses very well.
-I did my first two mods, a quark aa2 tactical and a fenix pd32. In the first flashlight,quark, it works just fine together, but can't tell accurate performance difference. 
In PD32, i can tell you the performance leap, at least on my measurements:
1)Manufacturer rated: 315 OTF and 5000 lux
1) I rated : 323 OTF and 5175 lux (i have a prototype sample)
2)1st mod with xp-g S2 2T(from cutter): 352 OTF and 5800 lux
3)2nd mod with xp-g2 R5 1A(from cutter too): 382 OTF and 7300 lux(!)
For the record, i measured 1,2amp on the LED (NOT on tail!) on PD32.It has a copper base pcb.

I hear you!


----------



## PapaLumen

Im after triple boards of this led. If anyone sees any...


----------



## jasonck08

saabluster said:


> Well that was Jason that said that not me but I assumed he got the XP-G2 figures from the data sheet and the rest from the PCT.





SemiMan said:


> I had assumed you meant PCT when you said "According to the cree tool:"
> 
> Semiman



The XP-G2 figures were taken from the datasheet. The other figures @ 85C for XM-L and XP-G emitters were taken from the Cree PCT tool.

With the new LED ratings @ 85C, it is important to compare the XM-L and XP-G to the XP-G2 at equal die temperatures, which is why I decided to list out the specs of the emitters at those temperatures.



ergotelis said:


> 2)1st mod with xp-g S2 2T(from cutter): 352 OTF and 5800 lux
> 3)2nd mod with xp-g2 R5 1A(from cutter too): 382 OTF and 7300 lux(!)



Wow so that suggests an increase in throw for the XP-G2 over the XP-G?

Other people in this thread were adamant that I was incorrect that a smaller viewing angle would yield better throw...???


----------



## ergotelis

@jasonck08, 

Well i didn't read all the theory about the theory, put everything into practice immediately! 
And in both two mods i made, the throw increased more than expected.


----------



## saabluster

ergotelis said:


> Well i didn't read all the theory about the theory, put everything into practice immediately!


A man after my own heart.:thumbsup:


----------



## monkeyboy

jasonck08 said:


> Wow so that suggests an increase in throw for the XP-G2 over the XP-G?
> 
> Other people in this thread were adamant that I was incorrect that a smaller viewing angle would yield better throw...???



You can't draw that conclusion based on tests with one type of reflector. I still maintain that a shallow reflector will favour the gen 1 XP-G for throw.


----------



## ergotelis

monkeyboy said:


> You can't draw that conclusion based on tests with one type of reflector. I still maintain that a shallow reflector will favour the gen 1 XP-G for throw.




Here are some tests in reflectors: In fenix PD32, Armytek Predator, quark mini123, quark 2AA tactical, ray X60, uniquefire uf v4, i get better throw results than xp-g R5, though not sure if the increase is due to higher lumen, but the hotspot seems tighter too. In Fenix PD32 i saw that the increase in throw was considerably higher than the increase in lumen. In an hour i will know also for quark mini123 (is Ti version with xp-g S3 led) and armytek predator.


----------



## monkeyboy

Interesting results . Thanks for doing these tests. I think the s3 bin gen1 is equivalent to the r5 gen2 in terms of lumen output (but are impossible to find). I'm thinking of modding a jetbeam rrt2 with the xp-g2 but will probably wait until neutral tints are available. The rrt2 is one of the easiest lights to mod.


----------



## ergotelis

I just dedomed one xp-g2 with success.It works! Do you know that i am crazy? 

I will measure it soon and post the results, as well as other issues, such as possible tint shift and improvement in throw.

I also swapped some led boards, so as to use the appropriate pcb for the flashlights i am going to mod.


----------



## ergotelis

Dedomed cree xp-g2:
Noticeable tint shift to yellow, original is 1A.
Performance loss is about 10%, i think it is quite good.
Throw improvement still not tested.


----------



## MichaelW

Is it possible that 7300 lux should be 6300lux?


----------



## ergotelis

MichaelW said:


> Is it possible that 7300 lux should be 6300lux?



I am pretty sure this number is correct. I can say that it might be even more, it is about 7300-7400.

And here we are, just check some more numbers, that i didn't manage to upload them yesterday:
Fenix PD32 R5: was 323 lumen and 5175 lux, now 382 lumen and 7300 lux!
Armytek PRedator R5: was 345 lumen and ~17,000 lux, now 411 lumen and 27.150 lux!
Quark mini123 ti *S3*: was 293 lumen and ~3450 lux, now 310 lumen and 4470 lux!

All readings are @~30sec after activation, i have put a lot of effort to measure them accurately, but still, to be sure for all expect a +-3% difference.


----------



## A10K

ergotelis said:


> Armytek PRedator R5: was 345 lumen and ~17,000 lux, now 411 lumen and 27.150 lux!



Wow.

That has just knocked off the "Nichia Predator" from the top of my Non-Existent Predator Model wishlist. 

Thanks for these numbers, this is great info.


----------



## ergotelis

A10K said:


> Wow.
> 
> That has just knocked off the "Nichia Predator" from the top of my Non-Existent Predator Model wishlist.
> 
> Thanks for these numbers, this is great info.



I would have done this mod too( i have some nichia 219 from Craig) but xp-g2 came...


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Ok, time for people to guess why and how Cree did it this time. Go!


----------



## tstartrekdude

Why? Because lighting nerds such as myself have short attention spans and will stop throwing money at Cree if they don't give new toys on a regular basis. 

How? Unicorn tears and panda sperm.


----------



## Colonel Sanders

tstartrekdude said:


> Why? Because lighting nerds such as myself have short attention spans and will stop throwing money at Cree if they don't give new toys on a regular basis.
> 
> How? Unicorn tears and panda sperm.



+1. Yep! You nailed it. They know what they're doin'.


----------



## SemiMan

bshanahan14rulz said:


> Ok, time for people to guess why and how Cree did it this time. Go!



Why? .... to stay ahead of the competition and give their end customers, many of whom are using the XPG an upgrade path without changing vendors.

How? .... packaging/die technology to address bonding wire issues to bring cost down and textured die surface to improve light extraction in order to improve efficiency

It's called progress.

Semiman


----------



## degarb

ergotelis said:


> I am pretty sure this number is correct. I can say that it might be even more, it is about 7300-7400.
> 
> And here we are, just check some more numbers, that i didn't manage to upload them yesterday:
> Fenix PD32 R5: was 323 lumen and 5175 lux, now 382 lumen and 7300 lux!
> Armytek PRedator R5: was 345 lumen and ~17,000 lux, now 411 lumen and 27.150 lux!
> Quark mini123 ti *S3*: was 293 lumen and ~3450 lux, now 310 lumen and 4470 lux!
> 
> All readings are @~30sec after activation, i have put a lot of effort to measure them accurately, but still, to be sure for all expect a +-3% difference.




But with lower forward voltage, simply swapping in a xp-g2 into an xp-g without changing the driver/resistor, naturally you would pull more current, have greater wattage and output, with lower runtime. Am I wrong?


----------



## degarb

saabluster said:


> I would disregard the last numbers I posted. It was a quick test like I said. I just bought a new power supply and I trusted too much what the readout was telling me. Not liking this new PS very much. grr. So I used a meter to see exactly how much current the LED was seeing and reran the test. This time with it attached straight to copper. These numbers are much more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to emphasize that the higher numbers are *not* achievable in a flashlight unless active cooling is used to keep the junction temps down. The lower you go in current the more representative these figures are going to be to real world flashlight usage. Still it is amazing to see this relatively tiny LED putting out over 1000 lumens. 1033 at it's peak. I chilled the LED to about 45F and got a reading of 1100 lumens even @4.91A.
> 
> .02 9
> .08 36
> .17 74
> .2 87
> .28 122
> .38 163
> .46 194
> .57 233
> .67 268
> .75 294
> .85 327
> .93 353
> 1.03 383
> 1.13 412
> 1.21 436
> 1.32 465
> 1.4 487
> 1.5 513
> 1.6 537
> 1.68 557
> 1.76 575
> 1.87 600
> 1.97 624
> 2.07 646
> 2.15 664
> 2.2 673
> 2.33 699
> 2.43 718
> 2.53 738
> 2.62 755
> 2.72 773
> 2.8 786
> 2.9 800
> 3.0 816
> 3.09 829
> 3.15 839
> 3.2 847
> 3.27 858
> 3.38 876
> 3.48 890
> 3.57 903
> 3.66 914
> 3.75 925
> 3.85 937
> 3.95 949
> 4.03 960
> 4.13 970
> 4.22 979
> 4.32 988
> 4.43 999
> 4.5 1006
> 4.61 1016
> 4.69 1021
> 4.8 1028
> 4.91 1033
> 4.99 1032



Another dumb question: It looks like the sweet spot is near 2 AA range. Would this not make two 2AA the most efficient setup. Now a 4 AA with killer runtime-two 2 AA packs in parallel? Making the need for entirely new controllers to maximize this?


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond

degarb said:


> But with lower forward voltage, simply swapping in a xp-g2 into an xp-g without changing the driver/resistor, naturally you would pull more current, have greater wattage and output, with lower runtime. Am I wrong?



That would only apply if you were dealing with a voltage controlled power source. LEDs are driven by a current controlled power source - that means that the current is held constant by modifying the voltage. So regardless of forward voltage (don't forget that changes as LEDs heat up and cool down) the current should be held constant.

Unless the light uses PWM in which case it may change a bit. But I know that at least Fenix and 4Sevens use current controlled drivers and no PWM.


----------



## bose301s

SemiMan said:


> Why? .... to stay ahead of the competition and give their end customers, many of whom are using the XPG an upgrade path without changing vendors.
> 
> How? .... packaging/die technology to address bonding wire issues to bring cost down and textured die surface to improve light extraction in order to improve efficiency
> 
> It's called progress.
> 
> Semiman



The die has always been textured, no change there.


----------



## ergotelis

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> That would only apply if you were dealing with a voltage controlled power source. LEDs are driven by a current controlled power source - that means that the current is held constant by modifying the voltage. So regardless of forward voltage (don't forget that changes as LEDs heat up and cool down) the current should be held constant.
> 
> Unless the light uses PWM in which case it may change a bit. But I know that at least Fenix and 4Sevens use current controlled drivers and no PWM.



Exactly. And moreover, this means, due to lower Vf, that we are going to have less energy spent, other than more light output. So, other than the classic lumen increase, in flashlights with good circuits, we are going to see a slight decrease in the current demand from the battery and higher runtimes.


----------



## tstartrekdude

Or longer time in regulation for the ubiquitous AMC7135 driven lights, something I am always paying mind to.


----------



## ergotelis

tstartrekdude said:


> Or longer time in regulation for the ubiquitous AMC7135 driven lights, something I am always paying mind to.



You will have a bit longer runtime regulation in AMC7135 based drivers, but also a larger energy loss, because this driver is linear.


----------



## SemiMan

bose301s said:


> The die has always been textured, no change there.



Would you be happy if I said more "pronounced" texturing of the surface or faceting? .... I was trying to keep it simple. In theory you are a Cree employee ... or so you have said. Why not reveal who you are and shed some light ... as opposed to adding nothing really to the conversation?


----------



## bbb74

bose301s said:


> The die has always been textured, no change there.



Are you sure about that? I thought the texturing SemiMan is talking about is pretty new, the die has all these angular prism type things on it, I saw a picture somewhere but can't find it now...


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I thought these weren't using that new flip chip faceted die, even though it would seem that Cree has a scaled up version the size of the ez1400 xpg die. I was wondering if anybody was gonna guess that Cree had made some sort of breakthrough in standard plane InGaN quality without having to move to non-polar nitride substrates, or that perhaps Cree has built some secret space station in outer earth orbit where they grow secret, massive, m-plane substrates. 

Also, Cree has textured the light extraction layer for a long time. Flipping the chip means more material between the active layer and the surface of the chip, meaning easier to get internal reflections at weird angles, mandating some larger "texture" to reduce the incident angle of these very acute light rays and allow them to be projected more forward. You'll notice that the active layer is now at the bottom of the chip. And Philips made flip chips a while ago. I'm glad Cree has found a way to do so with their (imo) superior dice. 

Also, here's a link to a pdf about the xp-c, this teardown was done back in 08, IIRC: http://www.systemplus.fr/plaquettes/MuAnalysis/Cree-XLAMP-LED-Lamp-Teardown-Report-short-version.pdf You can see the texturing on some of the pics at the bottom.


----------



## saabluster

SemiMan said:


> Would you be happy if I said more "pronounced" texturing of the surface or faceting? .... I was trying to keep it simple. In theory you are a Cree employee ... or so you have said. Why not reveal who you are and shed some light ... as opposed to adding nothing really to the conversation?


To be honest it sounded to me like you were referring to the XT-E die which has facets. To my surprise and delight this XP-G2 does not have that. It also has two bondwires for which it seemed you were referring to them having been done away with like in the XT-E. 
As an employee I think he would enjoy having some anonymity around here. Maybe he can't tell us what it is but feels more comfortable telling us what it is not. His call. Since he would bear the brunt of any repercussions from talking at all I don't think it kind to censure him for his decisions. Not that he has really ever said anything we don't already know.


----------



## AnAppleSnail

SemiMan said:


> Would you be happy if I said more "pronounced" texturing of the surface or faceting? .... I was trying to keep it simple. In theory you are a Cree employee ... or so you have said. Why not reveal who you are and shed some light ... as opposed to adding nothing really to the conversation?



This company is VICIOUS about employees saying anything or revealing anything about how their products are made. Even describing in detail the geometry gives away knowledge they have developed. That geometry is carefully engineered to be easily manufacturable and effective for light extraction. I think the company wants to avoid any knowledge leaks that would let interested third parties imitate their expensively-made gains in performance.

I've seen dies like this before, but I can't say where.


----------



## bbb74

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I thought these weren't using that new flip chip faceted die, even though it would seem that Cree has a scaled up version the size of the ez1400 xpg die. I was wondering if anybody was gonna guess that Cree had made some sort of breakthrough in standard plane InGaN quality without having to move to non-polar nitride substrates, or that perhaps Cree has built some secret space station in outer earth orbit where they grow secret, massive, m-plane substrates.
> 
> Also, Cree has textured the light extraction layer for a long time. Flipping the chip means more material between the active layer and the surface of the chip, meaning easier to get internal reflections at weird angles, mandating some larger "texture" to reduce the incident angle of these very acute light rays and allow them to be projected more forward. You'll notice that the active layer is now at the bottom of the chip. And Philips made flip chips a while ago. I'm glad Cree has found a way to do so with their (imo) superior dice.
> 
> Also, here's a link to a pdf about the xp-c, this teardown was done back in 08, IIRC: http://www.systemplus.fr/plaquettes/MuAnalysis/Cree-XLAMP-LED-Lamp-Teardown-Report-short-version.pdf You can see the texturing on some of the pics at the bottom.



Thanks for the explanation. I don't understand all of it but was interesting all the same.


----------



## SemiMan

AnAppleSnail said:


> This company is VICIOUS about employees saying anything or revealing anything about how their products are made. Even describing in detail the geometry gives away knowledge they have developed. That geometry is carefully engineered to be easily manufacturable and effective for light extraction. I think the company wants to avoid any knowledge leaks that would let interested third parties imitate their expensively-made gains in performance.
> 
> I've seen dies like this before, but I can't say where.



Every competitor has this product stripped down and under optical and X-ray microscopy. Can't hide geometry once it's released. Leaks prior to release are one thing but everything external is public knowledge now.

Semi man


----------



## bose301s

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I thought these weren't using that new flip chip faceted die, even though it would seem that Cree has a scaled up version the size of the ez1400 xpg die. I was wondering if anybody was gonna guess that Cree had made some sort of breakthrough in standard plane InGaN quality without having to move to non-polar nitride substrates, or that perhaps Cree has built some secret space station in outer earth orbit where they grow secret, massive, m-plane substrates.
> 
> Also, Cree has textured the light extraction layer for a long time. Flipping the chip means more material between the active layer and the surface of the chip, meaning easier to get internal reflections at weird angles, mandating some larger "texture" to reduce the incident angle of these very acute light rays and allow them to be projected more forward. You'll notice that the active layer is now at the bottom of the chip. And Philips made flip chips a while ago. I'm glad Cree has found a way to do so with their (imo) superior dice.
> 
> Also, here's a link to a pdf about the xp-c, this teardown was done back in 08, IIRC: http://www.systemplus.fr/plaquettes/MuAnalysis/Cree-XLAMP-LED-Lamp-Teardown-Report-short-version.pdf You can see the texturing on some of the pics at the bottom.


Again, no difference there either. The n and p sides of the die are the same orientation in both XP-G and XP-G2. Basically this is taking some of the stuff from the new DA products and applying it to EZ based products. I was very surprised to see bond wires still since there are no current spreaders on the top of the new chip, still trying to find that one out myself


----------



## bose301s

SemiMan said:


> Would you be happy if I said more "pronounced" texturing of the surface or faceting? .... I was trying to keep it simple. In theory you are a Cree employee ... or so you have said. Why not reveal who you are and shed some light ... as opposed to adding nothing really to the conversation?



You can say more pronounced if you want, but I am pretty sure EZ Gen 2 and EZ Gen 3 use the same exact texturing.


----------



## SemiMan

bose301s said:


> Again, no difference there either. The n and p sides of the die are the same orientation in both XP-G and XP-G2. Basically this is taking some of the stuff from the new DA products and applying it to EZ based products. I was very surprised to see bond wires still since there are no current spreaders on the top of the new chip, still trying to find that one out myself



I have not dedomed and put under the microscope yet, but I was expecting the bond wires may be to attach the transient protection device.


----------



## SemiMan

The XTE has a very pronounced faceting. Unless it is buried under the phosphor, it does not appear to have been done for the XPG2 on closer inspection. That could have been a tradeoff to ensure the exact same optical pattern in new fixtures without having to requalify the optical design ... and everything associated with that.


----------



## ites

ergotelis said:


> You will have a bit longer runtime regulation in AMC7135 based drivers, but also a larger energy loss, because this driver is linear.



BTW, you don't have to use 7135 to get constant regulated from 1*18650: there's fonarevka led driver


----------



## The_Driver

ites said:


> BTW, you don't have to use 7135 to get constant regulated from 1*18650: there's fonarevka led driver



Or the GDuP from the shoppe


----------



## bose301s

SemiMan said:


> The XTE has a very pronounced faceting. Unless it is buried under the phosphor, it does not appear to have been done for the XPG2 on closer inspection. That could have been a tradeoff to ensure the exact same optical pattern in new fixtures without having to requalify the optical design ... and everything associated with that.


This is exactly it. XP-G2 was designed to be a direct, drop in replacement for the XP-G, just brighter. The XP-G2 uses an EZ GenIII chip that eliminates the current spreaders on the chip surface and is easier to fabricate. This removal of the current spreaders on the surface of the chip is a big part of the gain in output, but not all of it.

The XT-E is using a DA chip which uses facets on it to help extract light. The chips thus radiate differently and do require redesigned optics etc. so they are maybe a little bit more expensive to implement up front. Overall though the XT-E is the recommended product for lighting etc. because it gives better lumens/dollar, but it isn't the greatest for flashlights.

I will say that the n and p sides are still in the same orientation on the XT-E and other DA based products as they are on EZ based products.


----------



## ergotelis

bose301s said:


> The XT-E is using a DA chip which uses facets on it to help extract light. The chips thus radiate differently and do require redesigned optics etc. so they are maybe a little bit more expensive to implement up front. Overall though the XT-E is the recommended product for lighting etc. because it gives better lumens/dollar, but it isn't the greatest for flashlights.



XT-E can be good for some flashlights, especially the old cree xr-e ones, i modded my all-time classic Jetbeam C-LE 1.2 with this led, and the beam profile is almost excellent. Highly recommended mod.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

bose301s said:


> I will say that the n and p sides are still in the same orientation on the XT-E and other DA based products as they are on EZ based products.



Interesting! And very interesting to hear that they've eliminated the need for current spreaders on the chip surface! I've got some more pointless, speculative pondering to do ;-)

Edit: Ah! So the DA chips have something else that boosts their efficacy, not just chip-level light extraction. I think Cree may have sacrificed that extra light extraction structure in order to maintain compatibility. But it's still different from a DA chip due to the topside anode pads. Still don't have a guess as to how they did away with bond wires. Saab, when you gonna hack one of these suckas in half? :laughing:


----------



## Gunner12

Great test Saabluster! Also, this thread is a great read. Can't wait to see these LEDs in some lights.

If I had the money, I'd love to get some of the dies used in these LEDs and just solder them to a big block of copper and the see how far it can be pushed.


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK

I see the spec sheet is now up (could be old news), thought I'd note it as no specific Vf's have been listed here yet; 2.8V @ 350mA, through to 3.1V @ 1.5Amp, much much nicer range for a li-ion CC setup, even at "max power". Be interesting to see the Vf's of the overdriven states, at a rough guess it should still be under 3.2V @ 2Amps, so essentially you could run it overdriven for the whole (recommended) range of a li-ion.
Actually it's almost identical to the XM-L as far as current vs Vf is concerned, haven't cross-referenced lumens yet though. Seems the only real advantage of the XM-L now is it's rated max current.


----------



## psychbeat

I'm curious as to whether the hi CRI version will still be 3700k 

Really stoked to see these hi lux #s!


----------



## RoGuE_StreaK

Just saw that what I posted above has previously been said. Sorry 'bout that, missed it somehow.


----------



## csshih

if I'm not mistaken they're using SiC for lower cost and better thermal performance? I recall the XM-L already used that, so I'm curious what will be upgraded in the supposed coming xm-l2.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I think they used SiC back in the XR days too. Heck, they've made SiC from the start, so they probably have the best way of growing GaN on SiC.


----------



## WeLight

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I think they used SiC back in the XR days too. Heck, they've made SiC from the start, so they probably have the best way of growing GaN on SiC.



Cree have never used anything but Silicon CArbide


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

^ yep. 
off-topic, this factoid gets thrown around a lot, but they say that Cree is the only maker of gem quality moissanite (SiC)


----------



## csshih

oh, marketing fluff. it's their "SC^3" platform.


----------



## bose301s

csshih said:


> oh, marketing fluff. it's their "SC^3" platform.


Yea, gotta make it sound cool, you know?  Really signifies it's a Gen 3 product which it is, but yea, definitely fluff, lol.


----------



## saabluster




----------



## SemiMan

saabluster said:


>





Looks like they are taking advantage of some of that cross-licensing with Lumileds. If this was not an XP-G2 thread, I would have assumed that was a TFFT Lumileds chip.

Semiman


----------



## bose301s

I have no idea of this new design will be applied to the XR-E, but if it is it would be quite nice, could have aspheric throwers without the current spreading lines visible in the projected die.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I had a headlamp with a flattened aspheric and rebel LED. The polka dots were kind of annoying, but I'm the weird sort who actually likes those fancy current spreaders. (http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pict7/atlasrgbmacro600.jpg <- cool!)


----------



## bose301s

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I had a headlamp with a flattened aspheric and rebel LED. The polka dots were kind of annoying, but I'm the weird sort who actually likes those fancy current spreaders. (http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pict7/atlasrgbmacro600.jpg <- cool!)


They look kind of cool but they reduce light output.


----------



## ergotelis

Just did a nitecore EC2 mod, from 6800 lux and 315 OTF i got 398 OTF and 9700 lux, doesn't that look good???!!!!  i love it now, this is the best edc ever!


----------



## gunga

I'm excited to see the neutral and high CRI LEDs when they are released. Is there a comparable update for XML? What little I know about XE does not lead me to believe it is an update for XML.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

All they have to do for the XM-L is make the xp-g2 die bigger, I'd imagine... but I think the idea was to simply bring newer more efficient technology to older designs, so that new products using the newer technology can make it to market sooner (no redesigning optics, minor driver changes if any)


----------



## CyberCT

So I can just replace the XPG LED in my flashlights with the XPG2 LED and they will work with the same drivers and everything? So the only difference would be more output at each mode, in my Fenix lights for example. Does it get as hot at 1.5 amps as the regualr XPG?


----------



## Gunner12

It should be more efficient, so it'll be a wee bit cooler. The emission pattern is also the same as the XP-G, so you should be able to do a straight swap.


----------



## CyberCT

Gunner12 said:


> It should be more efficient, so it'll be a wee bit cooler. The emission pattern is also the same as the XP-G, so you should be able to do a straight swap.



Oh if only I could get the heads off my Fenix TK45 to replace the XPGs with. I really like that floody light but want something more neutral and a little brighter in there. I might do the swap on my Fenix PD31 thogh.


----------



## A10K

Unfortunately right now Cutter only has 1A cool whites premounted on boards, and Illumination Supply has cool 1Ds. Unless you can do your own reflow work and get the bare LEDs from somewhere else, I don't think anyone has neutrals yet.


----------



## PapaLumen

Cutter now have 1C and 1D.

Anyone tried these with carclo optics yet?

I've ordered 4x 3-up XP-G2 R5 boards from cutter to replace the xp-g r5's triples in my bike lights. They use the carclo 10507 optics. It says fully compatible with these optics on cutter's site, but isnt the dome bigger on these g2's? Will try and get some pics of before and after


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond

Cutter also has 5B4 R4 neutrals in stock unmounted. I've already got a bunch on the way. 

I imagine it won't be long before they have them mounted.


----------



## BLUE LED

PapaLumen said:


> Cutter now have 1C and 1D.
> 
> Anyone tried these with carclo optics yet?
> 
> I've ordered 4x 3-up XP-G2 R5 boards from cutter to replace the xp-g r5's triples in my bike lights. They use the carclo 10507 optics. It says fully compatible with these optics on cutter's site, but isnt the dome bigger on these g2's? Will try and get some pics of before and after



I think Oveready had tried it. Dan and Tom


----------



## PapaLumen

Just to mention I can confirm they fit and work fine with the carclo optics.


----------



## John_Galt

PapaLumen said:


> Just to mention I can confirm they fit and work fine with the carclo optics.



Cab you compare hotspot intensity? lux#? we should be getting more throw from optics as well, not just reflectors, correct?


----------



## PapaLumen

Not great shots and should have tried some more camera settings but here's some shots - to my eyes the centre of the hotspot is brighter than before. 

Hard to tell being triples and all just how much tighter the beam is. Optics rather than reflectors is my understanding.. Idea being a reflector works better with a wider beam angle bouncing off it.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...t-2200-Lumen&p=4010267&viewfull=1#post4010267


----------



## climberkid

So who wants to sell 2 or 3 1C's within the US? I can't justify paying more for the shipping than the boards.

DOH!

-Alex


----------



## zhulo

ergotelis said:


> Just did a nitecore EC2 mod, from 6800 lux and 315 OTF i got 398 OTF and 9700 lux, doesn't that look good???!!!!  i love it now, this is the best edc ever!



Hi

can you please discribe how hard is to mod EC2, im thinking about buying EC2 if i can mod it with XP-G2

Thanks


----------



## ergotelis

zhulo said:


> Hi
> 
> can you please discribe how hard is to mod EC2, im thinking about buying EC2 if i can mod it with XP-G2
> 
> Thanks



the impossible way is to press out the metal ring. I don't know how you can do it.
The "easy" way is to break the glass(and that is what i did), then the metal ring comes out easily. Of course, you have to have a good quality replacement glass, i have some ucl same diameter that fit nicely!


----------



## BLUE LED

ergotelis said:


> Just did a nitecore EC2 mod, from 6800 lux and 315 OTF i got 398 OTF and 9700 lux, doesn't that look good???!!!!  i love it now, this is the best edc ever!



That mod sounds great. I wish I liked the EC2. I like throw, it's not that bad looking after all.


----------



## Netminder1

excellent, I'm excited that it is modable.


----------



## Overclocker

suppose you get an unmarked flashlight, how can you tell that it's an xp-g2 and not xp-g? any distinguishing features i should be looking for?


----------



## Toaster79

Overclocker said:


> suppose you get an unmarked flashlight, how can you tell that it's an xp-g2 and not xp-g? any distinguishing features i should be looking for?




Page 5 post#136. There is a nice close up photo of the die.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond

Also - XP-G has a green base and XP-G2 has a silver one.


----------



## PapaLumen

Easy way to see is no lines through the die. Old xp-g you can see lines.


----------



## jorn

Swapped the led in my maratac cu today. Took some quick before and after pictures of the beam. 
Camera settings on all shots are: shutter 0,4sek. F6,3. iso200. WB daylight. Distance to wall is 1,5 meters. 






Xp-g maratac cu lo mode.





Xp-g2 maratac cu lo mode.





Xp-g maratac cu hi mode.






Xp-g2 maratac cu hi mode.


Put the same batt in a old lf2xt with a neutral xp-e i think it's q4. The lf2xt got a deeper reflector, you can see the spill is narrower.





Tried to make a gif, but my photoshop skills are too weak  Really easy to see the difference between the stock xp-g and the xp-g2 when in a slideshow. So if anyone want to make a gif, feel free to do so  Hotspot shrinked a tiny bit, and got brighter. The spill really got brighter. I like it


----------



## bose301s

jorn said:


> Swapped the led in my maratac cu today. Took some quick before and after pictures of the beam.
> Camera settings on all shots are: shutter 0,4sek. F6,3. iso200. WB daylight. Distance to wall is 1,5 meters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xp-g maratac cu lo mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xp-g2 maratac cu lo mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xp-g maratac cu hi mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xp-g2 maratac cu hi mode.
> 
> 
> Put the same batt in a old lf2xt with a neutral xp-e i think it's q4. The lf2xt got a deeper reflector, you can see the spill is narrower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tried to make a gif, but my photoshop skills are too weak  Really easy to see the difference between the stock xp-g and the xp-g2 when in a slideshow. So if anyone want to make a gif, feel free to do so  Hotspot shrinked a tiny bit, and got brighter. The spill really got brighter. I like it


How hard was that to do and where did you get the LED from? I would consider doing it to mine.


----------



## PapaLumen

jorn said:


> Tried to make a gif, but my photoshop skills are too weak



Here you go :









You can do it online from here for example - http://picasion.com/ just upload your pics.


----------



## Glock 22

Awesome beamshots. I just bought a M61SHO, and I'm totally impressed with this new XP-G2. I like the throw and the tint color as well. This has been an awesome upgrade.


----------



## jorn

bose301s said:


> How hard was that to do and where did you get the LED from? I would consider doing it to mine.



Not hard at all, maby 10 minutes of work. No threadlock in the new version maratac cu. So you just unscrew the pill and desloder the old led and put in a new one. Got my leds from cutter, the mpcb is thicker than the stock. So yo need to reflow the led to the stock board, or sand the cutter board down 0.5 mm. If you just put the cutter led in, you will get a big gap between the head and the tube.


----------



## jorn

Thanks papalumen. They look way better this way.:twothumbs


----------



## easilyled

I'm very impressed with the beam that the XP-G2 provides in my 007 after having it upgraded from an XP-G.

On 1.4A, the output is terrific and the beam has a great mixture of both throw and spill.


----------



## las3r

climberkid said:


> So who wants to sell 2 or 3 1C's within the US? I can't justify paying more for the shipping than the boards.
> 
> DOH!
> 
> -Alex



should do group buys save on shipping ? just a though


----------



## Blitzwing

I have some g2 r4 1a tint emitters on the way from intl-outdoor, along with 2.1a drivers. Building two pills with three modes for my Solar force m3 and an L2.


----------



## John_Galt

Im currently looking at getting an eb1 and swapping in an xpg2. The drop in forward voltage should result in slightly better regulation, and I dont think there would be much loss of throw. I love the g2 ive swapped into my ra clicky. Ive swaped back anforth between it and the xpe r2 id had previously several timez and to my eye there is no appreciable difference in throw between the two leds and a much parger kore useful spill and hotspot with the g2. Im very satisfied with this


----------



## degarb

John_Galt said:


> Im currently looking at getting an eb1 and swapping in an xpg2. The drop in forward voltage should result in slightly better regulation, and I dont think there would be much loss of throw. I love the g2 ive swapped into my ra clicky. Ive swaped back anforth between it and the xpe r2 id had previously several timez and to my eye there is no appreciable difference in throw between the two leds and a much parger kore useful spill and hotspot with the g2. Im very satisfied with this



John Galt! How is that atmospheric statically powered light coming along? We want beam shots!


----------



## fedcas

hi,
i can see that the xp-g2 die is bigger than the xp-g one, so is the dome... so the beam should be less focused if I swap the emitter and keep the same reflector.
But:
1) is the effect just the same if i have an optic collimatore instead of a reflector?
2) is the effect noticeable or just a minor thing? Cause i think my headleamp is too focused and i would like it more flood. Let's say, is the difference in the beam XPG -> XPG2 bigger or smaller than the difference you have when swapping XPE -> XPG?







i'm a bit confused from that picture, xpg2 has definitely more spill, which is what i want, but the hotspot seems smaller and the fading from hotspot to spill seems less gradual, which is exactly what i don't want...


----------



## MichaelW

fedcas said:


> hi,
> i can see that the xp-g2 die is bigger than the xp-g one, so is the dome... so the beam should be less focused if I swap the emitter and keep the same reflector.


The xp-g2 die is the same size as the xp-g. The dome is larger, and the apparent size is smaller. That is why the hot spot is smaller and more intense.


----------

