150 watt hps or 125-200 watt CFL?

superbak3d said:

Well that's the thing with these kind of leds vs HID. HID have much better horizontal spread/coverage, where as leds like the kessil H380 are very point focused.

Meaning, you need multiple LED units to get even coverage in larger tents, basically you need 1 light directly over each plant, unlike HID where you only need the 1 bulb to cover the entire area.

BUT, when dealing with direct intensity (directly under the light), these kind of LEDs flat out beat any HID.


So I think a lot of this has to do with the number of plants you're growing. It's a trade off. The more plants you want to grow the more HID becomes the better choice, or alternatively you can grow a smaller number of plants with direct LEDs, but each plant would have much higher yields over HID.

At the end of the day, both roads lead to the same destination. Do you want to grow 8x 2oz plants with HID, or 4x 4oz plants with LED?

Click to expand...

I use both hid and led and the reason you have to use one over every plant is because the light sources you are individually using are nowhere near as intense as the hid counterparts. Partially due to the fact that these led arrays are made up of a bunch of 1-3 watt diodes to make a greater powered array. Most LEDs give a better footprint than hid when you match watts because you have several sources of light rather than just one. This also helps with penetration due to beam angle and overlap.

The reason people are switching to LEDs is because they have become more efficient watt for watt than hid are to run. Meaning you produce more, with the same watts. Or the same with less watts.

The reason the kessils are very focused is because they have lenses on them to focus the light output. Most LEDs put out 115+ degree beam angle unless you Capture and focus the light using lenses.

So you need several LEDs to get even coverage because you don't have 1000 watt LEDs. Well actually they exist and are starting to be manufactured, there's a thread on here about some 600 watt chips I think which would give you coverage more like an hid.

People like having multiple sources so that canopy growth stays more uniform. The lower power and many sources also makes it so you can have your lights much closer to your plants, wasting less of the intensity of each emitter. The efficiency of LEDs helps with heat.

So there are a lot of reasons LEDs are great. But your information is a little all over the place.

And generally, more smaller plants with led as they don't penetrate the way hid does generally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you missed my point.

It's focused intensity vs spread.

HID beats LED in this regard as you don't need as many "sources" of light, where as LED you do in fact need lots of them for even coverage.

The end result is generally the same, it's just how you want to get there.

Iam just not sold on LED's quite yet. Got friends that have them. To be honest i havent done much research in the latest of them. I heard their catching up. I did look up the Spyder 1200's. If those claims are legit then wow. But the initial price on them is just silly. Iam sticking to HID but the more i hear you all talk about them and how they are getting better (the early ones and the marketing claims pissed alot of growers off) the more interested i get.

I find it hard to believe they can come close to Gavita and P.L. double ended greenhouse fixtures.

superbak3d said:

I think you missed my point.

It's focused intensity vs spread.

HID beats LED in this regard as you don't need as many "sources" of light, where as LED you do in fact need lots of them for even coverage.

The end result is generally the same, it's just how you want to get there.

Click to expand...

I'm not missing your point, your point is a bit confused is what I'm saying.

Led is more focused as the light only emits of the front of the chips if that's what you mean?

I just mentioned that they are now making 200+ watt cob arrays, they should have the same kind of point source intensity and coverage as hid. Just no 360 degree beam angle.

And hids do not give even coverage. They have a huge hot spot right in the middle and rapidly taper off on the sides. Just like LEDs just on a much larger scale as they are much more powerful. But if you had a cob led running at 1k watts it would essentially have the same effect. The higher wattage you run your LEDs, the less of them you need to cover the same amount of space.

You're trying to state there is a difference in aspects that there are not. And the differences that do matter, ie efficiency, your completely ignoring.

It's good that you like LEDs and all, I just feel like you should like them/talk them up for the right reasons lol. When users come on here and spout stuff like a 90 watt kessil can outperform a 250 watt hps, you get newbies taking that shit seriously and then complaining about how LED companies lie and all that goodness, when it comes down to misinformation based on second hand knowledge or word of mouth.

That kessil and a 150 watt hps have about the same footprint and penetration from anything I can find with real experience. Which makes sense if because I would guess kessils output is probably 10-15% more efficient than hps, but I may be wrong because the journal I've found with results pulled almost exactly the same watt for watt with 380 watts of kessil vs 600 watts of hps. Granted in that grow, neither performed as well as I would expect, so may have been grower error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My mars300 put my 150w HPS to shame.

The H380 is obviously far superior to a mars300.

This is why I put it with a 250w hps. More accurately I'd say the H380 falls somewhere between a 150 and 250. So I refer back to my original comment that the H380 with some side lighting would be very comparable, if not better than a 250w hps.

Perhaps saying "easily outperforms" was not the best choice of words.

Grown with hps for 20 plus years, just recently switched to 315 watt ceramic metal halides. Best money ever spent, 2 315's are equivalent to 900 watts hps and 3 315's 945 total watts pulled me 1200 grams, over 1.3 gram per watt..so 3 cmh lamps are equal to or better than 2 600 watt hps lights..I've been doing straight up comparisons and the ceramics are smashing hps in gram per watt, yields, and resin production is better than ever.. Not to mention an 88 week strain under hps will finish in 7 weeks under the ceramic 3100k spectrum... So don't buy hps or cfl's and led is the future,,,just not the now,,to highly priced and a new led will be old news in a year or so...please don't get me wrong I've heard great things on the 3570 and 3590 cobs but if your not inclined to build your own led please wait a few years or do a lot of research before you put down that hard earned cash...buy a ceramic 315 watt kit, 1 bulb lasts 2-3 years, no more replacing bulbs like hps or mph..I can't recommend the ceramics enough,saves money on electric and the gram per watt is far better than hps/mph or both...1 315 will cost around 400 bucks but 1 harvest covers the cost and then some profit too.. Good will and good growing to all.. Growers unite, we are all loving what we do,,or we wouldn't be doing it...I'm a legal care giver, so kind of non profit but I simply love growing and helping people have a better life..

kmog33 said:

Those pull 90 watt? And you say you can outyield a 250 watt hps with it? What are your yields like from 90 watts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No the LED lights yield good. Much better than CFL, but I wouldnt but them near the yield of HPS! LED does well and use a lot less power. 3 of the LED's give me yeild similar to a 600 watt HPS. While using 270 actual watts with next to no heat.

superbak3d said:

My mars300 put my 150w HPS to shame.

The H380 is obviously far superior to a mars300.

This is why I put it with a 250w hps. More accurately I'd say the H380 falls somewhere between a 150 and 250. So I refer back to my original comment that the H380 with some side lighting would be very comparable, if not better than a 250w hps.

Perhaps saying "easily outperforms" was not the best choice of words.

Click to expand...

That's makes perfect sense, the Mars 300 at 150-180 actual watts outperforms a 150 watt hps. 150 watt hps is not the most efficient light at ~75 lumens per watt. You should have better spectrum off the kessils though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Medizzinman said:

No the LED lights yield good. Much better than CFL, but I wouldnt but them near the yield of HPS! LED does well and use a lot less power. 3 of the LED's give me yeild similar to a 600 watt HPS. While using 270 actual watts with next to no heat.

Click to expand...

New tech LEDs watt for watt pull better than hps. So if you had 600 watts of quality led you would yield more than a 600 watt hps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

superbak3d said:

My mars300 put my 150w HPS to shame.

The H380 is obviously far superior to a mars300.

This is why I put it with a 250w hps. More accurately I'd say the H380 falls somewhere between a 150 and 250. So I refer back to my original comment that the H380 with some side lighting would be very comparable, if not better than a 250w hps.

Perhaps saying "easily outperforms" was not the best choice of words.

Click to expand...

The H380 is just about the equivalent of a 200-250 watt HPS.

superbak3d said:

Those H380 are awesome lights. One of those and a few cfl side bulbs would easily outperform a 250w hps

Click to expand...

The Kessil H380 are very good quality LED lights. I was suggested them, and just got one at first. Now I have added a couple more. Now, comparable to a 600 watt HID.

kmog33 said:

That's makes perfect sense, the Mars 300 at 150-180 actual watts outperforms a 150 watt hps. 150 watt hps is not the most efficient light at ~75 lumens per watt. You should have better spectrum off the kessils though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not only that, but the 150 hps runs hot as hell. My tent barely gets above 75F with the mars. With the 150 it goes well into the 80s. It's manageable, but still a pain in the ass.

superbak3d said:

Not only that, but the 150 hps runs hot as hell. My tent barely gets above 75F with the mars. With the 150 it goes well into the 80s. It's manageable, but still a pain in the ass.

Click to expand...

Lol I've actually added a 150 in my tent for heat when my tent gets too cold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kmog33 said:

Lol I've actually added a 150 in my tent for heat when my tent gets too cold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Best advantage to LED is no heat, except in the colder months. You can use a large CFL (105 actual watt 2700K) to serve as a small heater, and add additional red light instead of HPS.

Medizzinman said:

Best advantage to LED is no heat, except in the colder months. You can use a large CFL (105 actual watt 2700K) to serve as a small heater, and add additional red light instead of HPS.

Click to expand...

I honestly just had the hps sitting around so when it got below 60 here I through it high up in the corner.
Now I have a filter up there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kmog33 said:

I honestly just had the hps sitting around so when it got below 60 here I through it high up in the corner.

Now I have a filter up there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Nice heat and extra lumens!

Medizzinman said:

Nice heat and extra lumens!

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Also great added spectrum for flower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk