Bridgelux vs. Cree

This has been kinda covered by our boy Flux but I wanted to see the efficiency numbers up against each other. Flux compared the Vero 10 but what about the 29 vs the 3070 or the most closely matched competitors in power/eff.

I remember that thread but forgot how good the spectrum looks... No, I PROBABLY won't replace my 3070s but for another build..? We all know this is addicting.

My next question is what are re highest bins available in the Veros?

What kind of hit in output would we take between the two? Etc etc etc.

Ready, set... Go!!

Veros don't have bins, which is one of the reasons it's hard to compare the 2. As supra said, knowing what bin you're getting is a big advantage, but you pay for that in added cost up front. (cxa 3070 AB is twice the price of a vero 29)

I think supras charts also include cost per watt to setup for different currents.

So it's just a toss up which you are getting? (Best or worse "bin") or is it an across the board standard for the emitter?

I have supras spreadsheet on my computer at home, I will post when I'm off if he or someone doesn't by then.
But off the top of my head the vero is significantly less efficient at lower currents like most of us are driving them at. They keep up better with a fuller/higher drive current, but the CXA's have the upper hand on performance.

EDIT:
K. I'm home for a second. It's actually close to the opposite of what I thought...harder you drive the vero, it suffers worse efficiency drop than the cxa's which hold their efficiency longer(over may currents) and higher.
Supra's sheet...

Glad you started this thread scotch. I've been wondering the same about how the cxa's and veros compare.

Not to get off topic from the cree vs bridgelux faceoff....but I'm curious about other cobs too...

Has anyone done analysis on
Osram Soleriq series cobs
Phillips Lumileds Luxeon series cobs
Luminux Xnova series cobs
Or Nichia's cobs (can't find much info on them)

Maybe there's a reason no one talks about these ones?

thank you for the chart G! now I remember why...... lol. the 3070s are 10% more efficient at the same output (25 vs. 24w) I like that the efficiency of the veros doesnt fall off fast, but efficiency is the name of the game for me. Even if I have to add reds to get the look (spectrum) I want, get closer to that perty 660 peak- I think my efficiency will still be higher than all 3k veros.

don't worry puff! Id be interested as well, glad to hear from you brother hope you are doing well!

It would be good to see what's comparable to the big boys, who do make some powerful ass blue dies to power those COBs of theirs, but what happens when you just want to veg? Sure there are dimmers but why beat you're head against the wall looking and paying for great bins when a competitor like Philips or Citizen can give you a great veg light.
The Philips seems good but their spectrum seems to be their Achilles heals, at least in flowering where their 3000K seems more shifted to 600-610nm though the 2700 sneaks in a bit more red by peaking at 620. But again the 5000s could be perfect for vegging and if the price is right then it's good enough in my book. I don't need more than a Honda to go buy the groceries for dinner .

Greengenes707 said:

I have supras spreadsheet on my computer at home, I will post when I'm off if he or someone doesn't by then.
But off the top of my head the vero is significantly less efficient at lower currents like most of us are driving them at. They keep up better with a fuller/higher drive current, but the CXA's have the upper hand on performance.

EDIT:
K. I'm home for a second. It's actually close to the opposite of what I thought...harder you drive the vero, it suffers worse efficiency drop than the cxa's which hold their efficiency longer(over may currents) and higher.
Supra's sheet...
View attachment 3216957

Click to expand...

So looking at this, it looks as if CXA3590's were just a tad under the efficiency levels of the Vero29's. Did the 3590's really get about a 15% increase in their efficiency in the new CXB3590's? If so, damn! If not, a little clarity? I'm still looking into building my 12 cob fixture for my 26''x60'' table, however, I have another green LED grower that has a vero setup for his veg, and is loving it for its "light penetration".

His argument is that the 80w Vero29, even if not quite as efficient per par watt, will still get the light further down the plant. I argue that even if this is possible I can't see more than a 6'' difference between the 2 depths of light penetration. Basically trying to settle in simplest terms that the cross light, spread, and overall efficiency of the CXB's will not only provide the same coverage (with better PAR), but achieve the same depth as would a vero.

Now this brings up a few possibilities, what if I were to use 12 vero's instead of the CXB's? In my mind it would probably be a bit spendy (more drivers), and not last as long as the cxb cobs would since I would drive them a bit less. Both seem to have about a 115 degree spread, so at the same spacing I fail to see the increase or decrease in coverage/penetration of the canopy.

Vero 29's for more power and depth? Or stick with what I really feel is just a bit better, and wiser of an approach which is the CXB's with either a decent small reflector to help guide my light within its 115 degree spread, or even a lens. Then again, I haven't looked much into the pro's and con's of a lens, but thinking back to my HPS cooled hoods, I would think it would cut at least 2-3%; but thats just me.

What I would really like to see is a spreadsheet with each cob/led on its own line in a massive table that we can compare all cobs and LEDs against each other and just keep adding to it as new stuff comes out. Like a master led/cob efficiency spreadsheet.

I'm not sure if the data can be formatted that way (or of its even look nice) but I'd be willing to give that a shot if I have some time (and if I can figure out how to read surpass spreadsheet completely)