[REVIEW/COMPARISON] Acebeam E70 (GT-FC40 vs XHP70.2)

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
LuxWad's picture
Last seen: 10 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 08/07/2021 - 13:22
Posts: 83
Location: USA
[REVIEW/COMPARISON] Acebeam E70 (GT-FC40 vs XHP70.2)


Well, as usual this specific comparison has already been made multiple times, so this video doesn’t cover much that hasn’t already been said.

The Acebeam E70 is a really nice light, with high, stable output and great runtimes. The new high-CRI version is using the Getian GT-FC40 LED, which I was really excited to try out. Because this LED is 12v instead of 6v, the boost driver has been adjusted accordingly. As expected there is a drop in performance across the board, with lower output, shorter runtimes, and more heat. However, the performance is still excellent, especially for a high-CRI light, and is better than I expected.

This video is not so much a review of the light as a whole, that was already done in an earlier video:

As a general recap, I like the E70 quite a bit, it’s really nice as a general use light. I actually really like the UI, while it’s a bit controversial I find it to be a very effective means of preventing accidental activation, while being fast and easy to use. I like it so much, I might have to put together an Anduril version with 2C for on!

Sadly, the battery situation is kind of lame. It comes with an (optional) USB 21700 cell, which is $20 extra. The cell in my older light actually failed and will no longer recharge properly, which sucks. This light runs off longer protected cells just fine, but shorter flattops will not work properly, as a shake or jostle will cut the connection. I have heard that ordering the light WITHOUT the cell more or less remedies this issue as the springs will not be compressed from having the longer battery pre-installed, but YMMV.

Now for some measurements:

Output – Lumens:

FC40 –
Turbo (Startup): 2,596 30S: 2,404 Stable: 895 (very impressive!)
High: 832
Med 2: 429
Med 1: 183
Low: 77 (that’s kind of high for me but whatever)
“Moon”: 3.7 (disappointing Sad )

Turbo (startup): 4,332 30S: 3,930 Stable: 1,110
High: 1,166
Med 2: 487
Med 1: 134
Low: 37
Moon: 0.86 (This is how it should be!)


Turbo step-down:

Turbo total runtime:

As can be clearly seen, the XHP70 light has substantially more output on Turbo, and has notably longer runtimes overall. However, the stable output on turbo/high is close enough that they’re effectively the same when used for extended periods of time, which is really nice to see. This shows Acebeam has purposefully tuned this driver to provide the same usability and I really appreciate that.

Even better, this FC40 LED has quite a bit more intensity than the Cree, at 4.52 cd/l compared to the XHP’s 3.57 cd/l. The standard version does throw farther at max output (14,621 max cd measured, vs 11,048 cd max calculated), simply due to being that much brighter. At the same output, the FC40 light has more reach. Both are still very floody overall, and make for great general-use lights.

Unfortunately, moonlight mode is a real disappointment here, being significantly brighter on this newer version. 4 lumens is fine as a low mode, but is way too bright for a moonlight in my opinion. This is my biggest complaint with the new version of the light, and one I would very much want to see changed in an update.

So here’s the thing: color on this FC40 is superior to the XHP70.2, in every way, and I really love this clean, neutral white beam. However, the LED in my light is distinctly green, with a tint of +27, which is disappointing to say the least, especially when I have seen other reviewers report much more neutral tints.

I DO NOT have the equipment to properly, meaningfully measure CRI or coloration, but I do have a camera and some editing software that can hopefully provide some extra insights:

GT-FC40 vs XHP70.2 CIE Chromaticity (XHP left, FC40 right)

This graph isn’t labeled, it’s just from the CIE chromaticity tool in DaVinci Resolve. The main thing to pull from this is that both LEDs are well above BBL.

IDK how meaningful this is, but here are a couple of waveform graphs (also Resolve) that I thought were kind of interesting:

Waveform: FC40 left, XHP70.2 Right

Waveform after white-balanced to the same CCT & tint: FC40 left, XHP70.2 Right

In use, the higher red content of this newer LED is very noticeable, and the color overall is still very pleasant. I just wish it wasn’t as green, as that would quite possibly make this my favorite LED – it is otherwise extremely good. I will have to try another FC40 with a better tint, hopefully I can get one in 4000K some time.

My final assessment is that this is an excellent light, which is both fun and highly practical. I think Acebeam is awesome for going through the trouble to produce a new version of this light with a tweaked driver and this relatively obscure LED, and the fact that both versions are available for whichever style you prefer is pretty great. I just wish that this LED had better tint – I really don’t know if that’s Acebeam not being picky about their bins, or if that’s more an issue with the LED manufacturer, but either way it should be better in such an expensive light. Still, when all is said and done, I really enjoy this new E70, and it is definitely preferred over the Cree model.

Well, that is all I really have to say about this one. I hope this review was helpful!

id30209's picture
Last seen: 8 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 05/17/2018 - 12:20
Posts: 2108
Location: Croatia

Good review!

WTB Titanium 4sevens 2xAA tube

zoulas's picture
Last seen: 5 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 06/01/2020 - 08:35
Posts: 2111

I have this light also. Using Molicel flat top unprotected, no problems.

My only beef with this light is that the lower modes are too low. It’s only when you hit turbo do you see the full potential. The low modes are too low lumen.

Other than that , A+ for craftsmanship.

Last seen: 4 hours 36 min ago
Joined: 12/13/2015 - 10:37
Posts: 999
Location: Canada

Wonderful review, thanks for taking the time to put all this together.