I haven’t checked the site or anything but I see some conflicting information
1) 1000lm @ 10W
And
2) 200lm/W
??? Not sure what’s going on here…
Am I working this out wrong? 10W should be 2000lm not 1000?
But from what I’ve gathered, in stock for because of the smaller dome they’ll throw further than an XML2. but De-domed it will be similar or worse due to the smaller heat pad.
I guess only one way to find out… We need this emitter tested STAT
Cree is saying there's improved output of the XM-L2 by about 10% across the range of currents they publish. Unless djozz tests prove otherwise, I have no reason to doubt Cree's claims.
I expect dedoming to have the same effect as dedoming an XM-L2, which is a reduction in lumens. Fortunately that doesn't affect my plans in the very near future, and hopefully after that there will be updated Carclo lenses.
The dome is the same size/shape as XM-L2, it's just truncated at the sides to fit on the smaller substrate.
Strange…
You would expect them to first get the efficiency up before reducing the heat path… :~
But maybe i missed something, like some jokes earlier… 
The differences shown in that chart are basically the same as the steps between flux bins of the same LED family, nothing revolutionary there that I see. If XP-L was 200L/W instead that would be a different story.
The smaller package allows more LEDs to be tightly packed together. Remember flashlight use only accounts for a small amount of LED sales.
According to cree’s specs, thermal resistance has not been reduced. 2.5 °C/W same as is listed for XM-L2
What? Look at the chart again. 200 Lm/W is right there at the top. If has an efficiency and output lead throughout. Maybe that will change at higher currents. In my near time mods, that's not going to be an issue.
Bins don't matter here since the XP-L V6 bin is currently available, and the highest bin XM-L2 is the U3 and is virtually impossible to acquire. The V5 is almost the same as the U3, so there's still a gain even if the availability of the V6 goes away
If it can't be overdriven to 2000 lumens due to the smaller footprint, hopefully Cree comes out with higher bin XM-L2 or XM-L3. The problem with XM-L3 is that there aren't any triple or quad direct bonded copper mcpcb's, or Carclo's to put over them.
Here's another chart with the XM-L2 U3 bin.
I thought the typical well known (to us) X-lamps were actually designed for things like flashlights.
Up to now i haven’t encountered them anywhere else.
There is at the moment (no date added) an announcement on the Cree homepage that they have improved the XP-G2 (7% brighter), XM-L2 (18% !! brighter) (and MK-R and CXA leds as well). We'll see when those become available.
I have a GU10 light bulb with four XP-E's in it.
I think you're deliberately making a false comparison. By your own account, where the XP-L is able to do 200lm/W, the XM-L2 is doing 194lm/W. You're still acting like XM-L2 is only 100lm/W and then acting amazed at how the XP-L is such a great leap forward. Apples and oranges. They're also different flux bins even though there's absolutely zero evidence they use a different die - except for the bump up in flux bin. An XM-L2 V6 bin would be virtually indistinguishable from a XP-L V6.
193.9 vs 200.8
165.4 vs 171.2
149.5 vs 154.2
136.5 vs 140
What I said still stands, it's basically just a bump in flux bin. An XM-L2 die stuck on a XP substrate.
What?! :bigsmile:
Difference between XM-L2 T6 & XM-L2 U3 is even more dramatic than between XM-L2 & XP-L.
Is it just me or does it appear that the tiny fragile bond wires are missing in this new version? If it indeed has a post for the bond wire, might it also handle current better? Higher?
I think I see a classic bond wire in this picture:
They're still there. Maybe a bit shorter because of the more cramped package, or that could just be a distortion caused by the edge of the dome.
Looks like the Vf is right between XM-L2's and XP-G2's -- that's a disappointment. I think comfy is right - not much to get excited about. Only nice jump would be lumens if it must be done on a XP-G/XP-G2 footprint, and the lower Vf compared to an XP-G2. If you had to de-dome to make it fit optics, you'll lose lumens of course.
Actually I would love to drop one in my T10... I have the stock XP-G in there now.
No, I'm making a mathematically accurate comparison. It's like you're selectively reading to prove your point. Like I said, the XM-L2 U3 is virtually impossible to acquire, and even if it were, the XP-L V6 is still brighter and more efficient everywhere on the data sheet. That's why I didn't put the U3 on the first chart, and apparently I shouldn't have put it on the second chart because you've misinterpreted why I put it there. Sure, there's a data sheet for the XM-L2 U3, but good luck acquiring that unicorn. There's no such thing as a XM-L2 V6 at this time, although the news djozz pointed out may change that very shortly. I'll stick with comparing what I can get my hands on. That is at best a XM-L2 U2 and a XP-L V6, and the XP-L V6 is undeniably brighter and more efficient. Whether or not it's perceivable by eye is hardly the point. I'm talking hard numbers here.
You're wildly misinterpreting how you think I'm acting. Better is better. If you are waiting for revolutionary improvements, improvements that are readily determined by eye, you wouldn't even be using XM-L's yet, much less XM-L2's. Maybe that's all you care about, and if so, good for you. I can understand that aspect, especially if the older emitters are much less expensive. As for me, if I can get the brightest and most efficient emitters for an application, then that's what I want even if I can only tell the difference with a lux meter.
Hmm… with those cut offs it’s maybe not suited for use with a refector…
Messy corona perhaps…