LED test / review - Hopthink TC7070 (neutral white high CRI) - round die LED with four chips

LED short test / short review EN


Hopthink TC7070


2025-07-27


  • Type: quad die, round die
  • Bin: unknown
  • Color group: neutral white
  • CRI: around 90

This LED was purchased directly from China. BLF user @yoelpez helped me get additional information about this LED, thanks for that!

The TC7070 is a 7070 emitter manufactured by Hopthink (sometimes also known as HSX or HSXLED). The special feature here is the round illuminated surface with four individual LED chips. These are connected in a 2S-2P configuration, resulting in a forward voltage of 6 V.

The individual LED chips are each connected with 4 bonding wires. The white silicone was poured in after the phosphor gel was applied and appears unevenly distributed. There are even “air bubbles”, as can be seen on the bonding wires. The white silicone is very susceptible to dust and a clean environment should be ensured when handling the LED.

The footprint offers no special features, it is fully compatible with existing 7070-MCPCBs. The notch in the footprint marks the anode.

The illuminated area is 7.2 mm2. There is no laterally emitted light, which should improve the beam in optics.







  • Maximum reached at 9.0 A, at this point 2526 lm @ 6.49 V
  • Power at maximum 58.4 W
  • Efficiency at maximum 43.2 lm/W




Data for 25 °C Tsp (at 85 °C the luminance values are around 13 % lower).


The maximum achievable output is not very good. Despite the 7070 footprint and the associated large heat dissipation surface, not even 60 W is achieved. This is presumably limited by the thermal resistance of the LED chips to the substrate, as 7070 LEDs can sometimes produce well over 100 W.

The efficiency is also not very high. Although a high CRI version was tested here, even with a cool white version with low CRI, more than 3000-3200 lm would hardly be possible unless there are significant differences in the mounting of the LED chips.

The Luminus LEDs with low CRI are far more powerful. Even the single-die version (SFT-40) beats the TC-7070 by worlds.

The luminance, on the other hand, is quite high thanks to the light not being emitted from the side. This LED could certainly be used for throwers, at least at very high current levels. However, this is not recommended - after the test and a trial run for 15 minutes at 9 A, small black spots/grains formed on the surface, see detailed photos. These cannot be wiped off and are very probably embedded in the phosphor mixture. Operation at maximum current is therefore not recommended and is likely to lead to early failure of the emitter!





The spectrum is similar to that of other Hopthink/FFL LEDs. A relatively complex phosphor mixture is used, consisting of (presumably) LuAG:Ce3+, YAG:Ce3+, Ca-a-SiAlON:Eu2+ and SLA, whereby the emission peak for the latter has been shifted to around 630-635 nm.

The tint is rosy and subjectively pleasant, but could be too rosy for some users.

95 CRI is not achieved, but the LED was not supplied to me with any CRI specification.


  • Ra: 92
  • R9: 67
  • CCT: 4532 K
  • duv: -0.0095

This LED is at least something new: four LED chips that together form a round LES have never been seen in mass production before. The performance is average, but the tint is good, as is the beam, and the luminance is relatively high. However, it should be noted that this LED should not be operated at the maximum possible current in order to avoid long-term damage to the phosphor, and the processing quality should also be improved.

Rumor has it that the 6 V version of the FFL707 from Fireflylite (sometimes called FFL707MD, the FFL707RD seems to be a 3 V version consisting of only one chip and is actually a different LED) is equivalent to this LED. As I have no official source to confirm this, it remains a rumor for now.

As soon as I have clear confirmation or it turns out that the FFL LED mentioned corresponds to the TC-7070 tested here, the title will be corrected accordingly.


Thank you for reading this test. :slight_smile:

Greetings, Dominik


v1.0.2
10 Thanks

Related info

【convoy】SFT70 3000K CRI95 available - #15697 by Simon_Mao

With no clear information, which LED was tested by Simon, and in which CCT/CRI. only “something similar”, what another LED other than the one tested here could be.

1 Thank

Oof, the black spots in the phosphor might be bad news for longevity even at regular operating currents. It is strange that they opted for an extremely pink tint, which reduces both CRI and efficacy.

Like some samples of SFT25R 5000K, it seems to exhibit the problem of uneven phosphor deposition, which means it will produce a horribly discolored beam in anything but the most diffuse TIR optics.

The beam was quite pleasant in OP S2+ reflector, but I can imagine this can cause some problems in SMO reflectors, especially the big ones.

I think this unevenly applied phosphor has to do with the fact that it is applied as a suspension with thick viscosity. Presumably, it is simply a precisely measured drop that is applied to the chip by a dosing machine and then smoothed out in an additional step, but then a few corners are often left uncovered. This would also explain these “splashes” next to the round LES on the chip.

I wonder what the dark spots were originally. Could it be part of the phosphorus mixture, perhaps a type of phosphorus that is not as heat-resistant or cannot withstand as much radiation? However, this is contradicted by the fact that these dark spots only appear on part of the LES.

1 Thank

That makes so much sense! I’ve noticed a lot of Chinese emitters having a phosphor deposition that doesn’t align with the die boundary, with the Moonleds MN-S3535 being a prime example.

My (completely uninformed) guess about the dark spots is just dust and other uncontrolled contaminants during assembly. I’m guessing this because

  • as far as I know, phosphor crystals don’t turn black even if severely overdriven,
  • the distribution of black spots is too sparse, and particle size too non-uniform, to be part of the phosphor, and
  • a lot of it also ended up in the white substrate. Even before the test, debris such as a piece of blue fabric can be seen embedded in the white substrate.

On an unrelated note, do you have a guess for what the beads are on the bond wires? There were suspicions of AI image generation artifacts when pictures of this emitters first appeared, but they also appear in your photos.

These bubbles or whatever that is, it is definitely there.

Here are some images from my shitty digital microscope (which definitely has no AI compression or something like that :smiley: )

I don’t know what that is.

It looks a bit like clear silicone or some other liquid coming out of the white potting compound (?). It certainly looks strange. If I had more of these LEDs, I might investigate further, but since I only have two, I definitely won’t be doing that. If anyone has any, I would be very grateful for a couple of LEDs with these “bubbles.

In any case, the refractive index appears to be different; the bonding wire appears to be larger in diameter below this bubble.

2 Thanks

Any chance it’s some sort of flux or flux residue from manufacturing process? The yellow color, proximity to soldering sites, and previously-liquid phase are all suggestive of this conclusion.

It also looks to be all over the white substrate too. Won’t be surprised if some of it went into the phosphor and burnt up.

Thank you for the review koef3 and incredible pictures!

Looks like a good LED to me - high CRI, negative DUV, 4500K, good beam. :+1:

How could someone purchase these?

If it was flux it would have probably evaporated or at least liquified during the test. I believe this might be some kind of binding agent for the phosphor powder.

I’m not a LED manufacturing expert by any means but the way I would do it is: first apply the phosphor powder over the LED surface, then after that apply the binding agent over the light emitting surface, then after that would be a cleaning step to remove the excess phosphor (that would explain the phosphor powder sprinkled all over the LED surface). I imagine that the application of the binding agent could be done more precisely than the application of the phosphor powder. it’s strange that this unknown resin is so yellow, ideally it would be completely clear so it doesn’t absorb blue light, but god knows the composition of this stuff.

1 Thank

I would simply mix the suspension with phosphor particles beforehand according to the specifications and put this suspension onto the LED, and then drying this gel with UV or something like that. The somewhat wavy and uneven surface of the phosphor of the TC-7070 seems that this was the case.

Could also be the case that the phosphor mixture or even the gel suspension was already delivered completely mixed by the supplier. Would make sense since this could be way cheaper in overall handling and processing steps.