I'm new to all this, but taking one look at that spec sheet has me asking: why aren't more people using these types of LEDs for flowering, and/or as a supplement for blue (450nm) and deep red (650nm)?
"Well, because it only produces 86 lumens per watt!" I can hear people saying.
But see, this is the thing I don't quite follow . . . So much emphasis seems to be placed on luminous flux - lumens per watt - in terms off LED efficiency, and not radiant flux - which is arguably a far more accurate measure of how a chip or diode may perform in terms of flower or veg power.
The simple fact luminous flux is weighted around the green spectra where the human eye is most sensitive - and where photosynthesis is arguably least reliant (for flowering purposes at least) - means a "super efficient" LED in terms of LPW that puts out a significant amount of its radiant energy in the 500-600nm wavelengths may not be all that efficient at all when it comes to horticulture.
I know luminous flux is all we have to measure one diode against another on factory data sheets - and I am not ignoring the importance of the green spectra for complete photosynthetic efficiency and light penetration; nor the fact total radiant energy in all usable wavelengths is a greater driver of photosynthetic performance than spectrum alone - but I see a case for perhaps moving somewhat away from all this emphasis on lumens per watt towards desired spectra.
I don't know how else to measure the efficiency of that "fresh meat" diode, but it seems to me to have the basis for a very good flowering lamp.