Why should I buy XP-L? Need some basic pointers.

I just want to bypass all the technical talk and get the basic rundown.

Why should I buy some XP-Ls?

Are they just XM-Ls with a smaller footprint?

Is the dome XM-L size or XP-G size'

Do they fit in Carlco triples?

Do the outthrow XM-L or XP-G?

Can they be driven hard like XM-L2, or is the thermal footprint too small?

What application would they excel at over XP-G/XM-L?

I've almost pressed the button several times, but it wonder if I really have a use for them.

They are just XM-L2s with a smaller footprint.

posting to subscribe to this. You’re asking everything (and then some) that I want to know, too

Can xpl get easily focus in xml’s reflector?

i would also love to know the answers of this questions thanks Ouchyfoot for starting this

Why should I buy some XP-Ls? Because you’re dying to!

Are they just XM-Ls with a smaller footprint? Nope, they’re XP-L2’s in a higher output bin on an XP-G2 substrate.

Is the dome XM-L size or XP-G size’ Both. it’s the large dome necessary for the big die, but cut at the sides to fit on the small base.

Do they fit in Carlco triples? Not with the dome on. De-domed they work quite well. BLF17DD Triple at 7.84A on a 14500 for 2070 lumens.

Do the outthrow XM-L or XP-G? Throw should be similar, but with the extra power of a higher bin.

Can they be driven hard like XM-L2, or is the thermal footprint too small? djozz tested them to 10.5A vs the XM-L2 at 8.5A

What application would they excel at over XP-G/XM-L? Small lights with small reflectors that require a small star. Triples. Essentially any light that’s using an XM-L2 could benefit from the higher output bin….V5 or V6 being higher than U2 or U3.

Thanks DBCstm! Is the die size the same as xml?

Looking at the Product Characterization Tool they seem to be different beasts.
There is a big difference between the two in the u2 bin and only a small difference with the xp-l in the second highest bin, the highest bin of any led is usually hard to get.

Not having even seen the xp-l, the above is just observation :wink:

Cheers David

Yes same die as in the XM-L2.

Thing is - a few people testes XP-L against XM-L2 and it turns out that XP-L isn’t brighter than XM-L2 at all. So you get similar brightness and throw on smaller footprint. XP-G2 is throwier but less bright.

Nice thread with good questions. I still find that the advantages of XP-L are not that significant compare to the XM-L2, especially after reading the test done by djozz recently.

And some even said XP-L is here to “take over” the XM-L2… I doubt about this though. Also I thought we could see the appearance of XM-L2 U3 more and more often but unfortunately no, looks like they try to market their XP-L instead.

I really love my XP-L V6 2C in a ThruNite T10. Awesome lumens and didn't have to mod the reflector to get it to fit Wink. It's a nice drop-in replacement for XP-E's or XP-G's to boost lumens output. I'd like to see how they do in AAA lights like the Tank007 E09.

Note: tests seem to show about equal to an XM-L2 in output for the V6. Though the XP-L melts at higher amps, it's peak amps is lower than a XM-L2 - peaks bout 7.5A I believe while the XM-L2 keeps rising to the catastrophic end.

So -- bottom line: you get about the same lumens of an XM-L2 U2 2C, but in a XP footprint, but you have to take into account the larger dome for things like TIR optics. I thought it didn't throw as well as XPG's?? I'm pretty sure the T10 throw dropped quite a bit when I upgrade from the stock XPG to the XP-L, though lumens went up noticeably and got a better tint. Like Dale said, it's a nice upgrade for reflector based XP lights.

I bought two XP-L 's last night because intl-outdoor has been out of 80cri emitters for some time and he has one in XP-L now (7A3)

the biggest benefit I see would be running them on triples either Dedomed with the current xp-g2 Carlco len or when they come out with a xp-l specific len. At 1.5A a piece you are talking 2100+ lumens at the emitter. With xp-g2s you are looking at 1500-1650lm range.that would make for one heck of a pocket rocket.

It seems to me that if you had a choice between running an XP-L or an XM-L2, the smaller footprint of the XP-L won’t be able to transfer heat as well as an XM-L2 because of its reduced thermal path.

One advantage of XP-L thus far is that better tints are more common compared to previous releases of LEDs. Either Cree has dialed in tolerances for making phosphors or we’re just lucky.

Only bummer in my eyes is they probably haven’t fixed the Cree Rainbow tint gradient/separation issue that’s plagued the bigger X-Lamp dice since XM-L.

Djozz tested this and IIRC he found the difference while extant is basically negligible except for very high currents. Cree says thermal resistance of 2.5 degrees per watt for both.

So why is the XP-L even exist ? Seem completely useless… Cree was claiming it was a big breakthrough in LED technology, the usual marketing BS.
The only real difference is the special dome that is suppose to give more lumens.

Cree LEDs are created for home and business lighting, not for flashlights.

Basically they’re pitching “lumen density” - marketing department buzzwords for an improvement (however real or insignificant) in how much light a designer can squeeze out of a given package size and, by extension, a luminaire of a given size.

So companies dont have to redesign fixtures / boards that use the XP footprint but can step up to the XM die by simply switching LED’s.

ETA: another advantage is that there arnt any good multi-emitter direct bond MCPCB's for XM's so the XP-Al gives us modders / builders the option to have 3 XM dies on a triple/quad copper board (ignoring for a sec the different done size, people will say "oh but the XP-L domes don't fit XP optics", well yes that's true but its a whole hell of a lot closer and takes less custom work than trying to start from scratch and build a direct bond triple /quad XM MCPCB and a simple dedome will solve the issue of optic/dome compatibility).