Much lower thermal resistance (0.2K/W vs 0.7 K/W). I also note that now they measure according to a JEDEC standard. XHP70.2 datasheet doesn’t mention that, so measurement methods might be different and so - the numbers might not be directly comparable
Vf changes a little less with temperature and is marginally higher
Again I see that these tend to have 1 bin up
Light emission is slightly narrower, FWHM is 120° rather than 125°.
Also from the XHP50.3 data sheet, “configurable to 3 V, 6 V or 12 V by PCB layout”
Finally, one emitter covers the entire voltage gamete. Why didn’t they do this from the beginning? Im looking forward to trying out the XHP50.3 HI in a few older flashlights that need upgrades.
With the 3V and 6V LEDs having the same pad layout, I don’t think that’ll be the case.
Anyhow, looks like we’ll have an updated 70.2 that’s a little throwier, and a 50.2 that’s much throwier. This will probably be a simple reflow to make the FT03 and other 50.2 lights a lot throwier without sacrificing too much output. Double the intensity as previous xhp50 iterations as they said.
They finally have an ETA on the 5000K XP-P LEDs as well: 2021-09-24… two more months.
I had been fairly optimistic about this LED, having a < 6500K thrower LED finally (and a ubiquitous 3535 footprint to boot). But JaredM has shown some discouragingly high vF values compared to the Osrams.
JaredM's data is higher Vf that the CREE spec shows, but the spec is still fairly high. Basically this is a 4 amp max LED, maybe on an absolute fresh cell, or by boost. The throw #'s look decent though.