XP-L vs XM-L2 OTF Tests

My guess is: if they can fit an xml emitter on a 3.45x3.45mm xpg platform by clipping the dome edges, then they can put something larger on the xml’s 5x5mm platform and keep the xml footprint. I think the XP-L will kill the xpg since they share the same footprint…remember, the vast majority of the led market is not looking for throw like the xpg delivers…they’re looking for output. The differences between the xpl and the xml aren’t drastic.

I never thought there was a difference either. When I built the xpl, I just naturally use the xpg reflector because it fits the isolation pad I use for centering. I really didn’t expect a difference when I put on the xml reflector. Keep in mind, the difference isn’t huge…just noticeable.
When the xml smooth reflectors were backordered from all my suppliers about a year ago, I drilled out some xpg smooth reflectors an they looked good on the xml.
The real difference may be who they were bought from and what day of the week they were made.

The difference, is of course, in the binning. Like a U2 is brighter than a T6, the V series binning is the next step up from U. These new XP-L’s should be in the 18-20% brighter range, as we’ve seen before with a new bin.

It will be a sad day when they have a ‘Z’ bin…if they use up all the letters…they can’t get any brighter…

Why I’m impressed with the XPL V5…they managed to generate a 2A tint…not a 1A or 0D like you would expect.

When I had the light in my Avatar built, it came to me making 135 lumens. Now, with a de-domed XP-L and a driver of my own build (BLFTiny10) it’s capable of 921 lumens. :slight_smile: Radical difference, I’d say! The bigger XM-L2 die wouldn’t fit in this light without major alterations. The die size of the XP-L did indeed still require opening up the emitter hole in the reflector.

I also like these XP-L for a triple configuration. Big step up over the previous XP-G2.

I’m finding the tint shift upon de-dome to be much less and of a better quality overall. Seems that the dome is concave on the die side, not actually in contact with the die face or phosphor so there is less effect removing the dome from the adhesive strip around the outer edge. Win win.

okay now it makes sense, made me thought the graph legend was wrong

btw its smaller and still better cooled? weird

Milan, the die is the same size it’s just put on the substrate of an XP footprint.

I think Cree’s intention was to allow the higher powered XM class die to fit together tighter in arrays for street lighting and such, so using the existing compact XP size base and cramming the big XM-L2 die on it made a lot of sense. Notice that the dome has flat sides to allow these to nest together without gaps, this is ideal for array use where multiple dies fit into one light.

Sure we use em in our lights, but I doubt Cree gave us much thought when designing these.

This is interesting, different results from other tests done and posted here, that showed the output about the same (think myself included Smile). XM-L2 U2 1D's I've used tested a little lower than XM-L2 U2 1A's. Also the XP-L is not the highest bin available - the V6 is available from Illum.com.

Did you use copper DTP stars on both?

Also the interesting result of the XPG reflector throwing better than the XML reflector is also true for C8 reflectors.

Thanx for doing these tests!!

After I test more lights, I will be more comfortable with the accuracy of the outcome…this test was merely 2 of each…but I think it’s a good start.
I’m not sure the xpg reflector has a different geometry than the xml -the contact ring on the bottom of the reflector -the part that presses against the isolation pad, it holds the xml reflector .46mm higher -this could change the focus enough to affect the throw 8 meters. Also, my xpg reflectors are .5mm larger at the top…so there could be a difference. For the little difference in throw, I will use the reflector that gives the best beam pattern.
One thing to note: the OP xpg reflector looked terrible on the XPL.

I think your tests are better/more thorough than my own for sure... Using qty 2 of each is one more each than most of us use Smile. Maybe those V5 2A's are pretty good. Think I and djozz used V6 2C's. I truly believed the cooler tints in the same bin will perform better, but after djozz's light meter tests, I'm not so sure now. His test results indicate cheaper light meters (maybe Extech included) measure cooler tints higher than neutral and warm tints.

djozz's here: https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/27500

Actually in looking over the results, they are actually pretty similar to yours. His lumens are higher but he's not using any reflector or glass, just bare emitter I think.

Thanks for sharing your tests. I'm new to this whole XP-L business and have only scanned the old threads. Am I correct that the XP-L can't be used with XP-G optics? I have a bike light coming which has 4 XP-G's and was going to swap them out for XP-G2 NW's, but should I consider the XP-L instead?

Thanks,

-Garry

DBCstm, in your eyeball experience, what tints are you getting with the XPL dedomes? Original tint to approximate dedome tint? What method of dedome are you using? By the pic I would say Hot dedome but want to confirm…

Thanks!
AlexGT

I am starting to buy more xp-l over XML and xml2. I am really liking xpl

Garry,

I dedomed the XP-L so that it would fit under the triple XP-G optic that I modded for someone. He created a video running at 3 amps. Skip ahead to about 1:25.

Alex, not sure what to call it on tint but it’s definitely a more pleasing color than the de-domed XM-L2’s I’ve been doing lately. Many of the 1A’s even have a greenish hue, so I’m pleased with the XP-L’s compared to those.

Pleased enough to use one in my Texas Poker, which should say it all right there. :wink: Swapping from the de-domed XP-G2 at 552 lumens with no other changes, the XP-L gives me 921. Major difference with a 3.3A pull. When you consider that the smaller die was being driven at double it’s recommended amperage, and the XP-L is just barely over it’s max, I’d have to think it’s more efficient with it’s power consumption vs. output but don’t know how to figure all that out. Mind you, this is a 3” long light with a head diameter barely larger than a penny. It runs on an Efest IMR10440 cell. Yes that’s right, from a AAA sized Li-ion it’s making 921 lumens! I call that a win! And this is why it’s a beast in a triple. :bigsmile:

I first started only doing gas de-domes, they come off much quicker on these new ones. The one in the pic is my first hot de-dome and it went pretty well. Wasn’t sure, lol.

Finally got my hands on XP-L recently. It feels like much brighter version of XP-G2 rather than XM-L2. XP-L is definitely the LED that I am going to stock up right now.

The only dislike right is the "XM-L to XP-G reflector converter" (gasket for centering) cost more XM-L model.

XP to XM adapter: http://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/7-5MM-Insulation-Spacer-for-led-CREE-XM-L/411584_612054094.html

The flat ring the reflector sits on is VERY thin, around .012". No sanding required for those reflectors that need the LED up as high as possible.

Is this the first test showing that CREE was not exaggerating their ratings for the XP-L LED?

They have never done that, so that is why my question was, why would they do it now?

Nice test pflexpro!

Thanks nitroz! I'll check it out for sure. Guess after awhile we'll start seeing XP-L optics.

-Garry

You guys are talking over my head again :slight_smile: I have to wait on emitters but your talking throw with dedomed or not dedomed? What about the XP G2?