Hope IO will have them soon 
I just don’t see that pic in the datasheet. There’s the picture on page 1 and that’s it.
Page 11
Thanks CRX!
no their not
Cheers
One of the other XP-L threads had this disappointing bit of info that should be here too. Thanks welight for finding this out for us.
So that means it's a non starter for RMM's triple XP S3.
If things go according to plan, I should have these in a light soon...and hopefully get at least 3200 lumens. Optics are still an issue though.
I'd love to see another test of these on a Sinkpad or Noctigon to find out if it'll do far over 3 amps like the XM-L2 and XP-G2 does, and if so, to know if it'll top out around 6 amps like the XP-G2 or climb well over 8 amps like the XM-L2. I'd love to see the XM-L2 dethroned.
If only there were a way to get rid of those pesky domes! Has anyone tried soaking them in some kind of solvent? I wonder if gasoline would work?
Gasoline? Really? Nah.
I just been trying to roast them off with a blowtorch. 
Made some delicious cree s’mores! Just no good de-domes as of yet. I shall not be deterred!
Why?
You think they changed the dome material?
If not, it will work like any Cree dedome: dunk in car fuel for some time.
(or did i miss something?)
He is joking (as was I). Yes, gasoline should work.
IS has them, I ordered some... I'd be surprised if they behave any better than the XM-L2, the smaller footprint should make thermal transfer a bit worse I guess.
Yes and as already discussed (maybe it was in a different thread), a dedomed XM-L2 (which has the same die as the XP-L) has a beam very similar to a non-dedomed XP-G2. So in the 20mm triples, a dedomed XP-L should work about the same as XP-G2 in the same setup, just with moar lumenz.
That kills most of the efficiency gains though. I'd rather save a couple bucks and some hassle and stick with an XP-G2.
But it's the same old XM-L2 die stuck onto a XP footprint substrate, how does that do anything to alter the efficiency? Shouldn't behave any differently than a dedomed XM-L2.
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