Which prints the best? | Bambu X1C - Creality K1 - Prusa XL - Mk4 - Mk3s

Five Prints, with the exact same filament running similar slicing profiles compete to win Nick's approval. Across the duration of filming, Nick was blind to what printers completed what print. This led to some interesting results as Nick is considered a Prusa-nut by many. Tune in to see which of these popular printers (Prusa XL, Prusa MK4, Prusa MK3s, Bambu Lab X1 Carbon, and Creality K1) is the best. Please note that all firmware was up to date at the time this video was filmed (No input shaping for Prusa).

Clarifications that should have been more prominent in the video (Our apologies):

-We used fresh rolls of Yellow Hatchbox PLA

from the same order for all of the printers.

- A fan was circulating air in the room to ensure consistent air temperature.

- Slicer presets were selected to come as close as possible to 0.3mm layer heights (although this does not fix the line width problem)

- Slicer presets were used to ensure that we represented the manufacturers intended use for the printer.

- None of the printers were pushed past 100% speed

- The Prusa XL had a 0.6mm nozzle, which is default for the printer presumably to match the scale of the printer.

- By default, Bambu Studio has detect thin walls off by default resulting in the print not having any extruded text as it didn't even try. The focus was on the cut text on the prints.

Chapters:

0:00 Intro
1:12 Prusa MK3s
2:19 Creality K1
3:17 Prusa MK4
4:20 Bambu Lab X1 Carbon
5:38 Prusa XL
6:43 Ghosting
7:03 Ranking the Best
9:05 Outro

[eXeNooNe]

As Marcos has already pointed, using 0.6 nozzle on one of the printers where other use 0.4 is not a fair comparison.
But this is not the only problem with this test. In the ideal conditions for such tests to be as accurate as possible, you need to have as little differences as practically possible, leaving out only mechanical/firmware to affect the print quality. The nozzles need to be the same (not just the same orifice width, but the material and potentially the brand/type, I know this is virtually impossible with non-standard hotends like Bambu for example), the filament needs to be the same (or multiple spools from the same manufacturer opened just before the print), the slicer needs to be the same with as close settings between the printers as possible. I would argue that with certain things like print speed/acceleration you would dial them down to match the slowest printer on hand, so if you're measuring the print quality only, you measure what fast printers can do if they slow down (which usually results in better quality).

[RobbertdeRouw]

So the Bambu didn't print any of the text but is number I want my 9:15 back please.

[bulgogiprince]

Spot on for the Bambu - I have had problem with it slicing STL files with text and most of it not showing up. I noticed step files seem to do a bit better. The method I have used to correct this has been to use the bambu slicer built in text tool. Took a few tries to figure it out but it makes beautiful crisp text. I have even done side by side with modeled text and using the tool on the same part. Night and day difference.

[herr_rossi]

If I understand correctly, a printer that has not printed the font is in first place? Even if the other stuff is very good and the overhangs are really impressive, that's a reason for a significant devaluation. At least like the ghosting on the Prusa XL. But otherwise an interesting test with great printers. Thank you for that.

[rubinpanis]

Great to see all 5 Printers in one comparsion. Thank you for all the effort you alread have put in creating this video. Since it is about print quality I would love to see a "round 2" with equal nozzles and each printer set to the suggested setting by the manufacturer. The .3mm settings for the MPrusa MK are way too much for the installed coolings system. Actually they suggest to print .15mm which changes print quality significantly.

Slow print speeds can be compensated by more printers but weak quality is not solvable by investing more of the same. So I am curious if you could give it a try and get the best quality possible out of those five! :-) Thanks in advance!

[ScytheNoire]

Not sure how you rank a printer that failed to print any of the text as the best, when it completely failed one of the requirements.
Also curious to know what settings were used, as you need to adjust your settings properly when doing bridging and overhangs, and know what to do in the slicer software. There are settings for those.

[elchavode]

So a test of quality but in the end it was a test of who has better overhang angle.

[dsjove]

I appreciate the subjective out-of-the-box experience; default hardware, default settings, and (hopefully) default slicers. But...

The MK3 is an ancient and soon to be deprecated printer. The MK4 and XL have an upcoming firmware update with Load Cell and Input Shaping. The comparison is fair because those printers are for sale - but those facts were not mentioned. I would like to see the same test after the firmware updates.

The printer that failed to print detail for 1st place?

[dprintdogs]

Hmmm I'd have liked more focus on the print settings you used for each. I have the X1C and Prusa MK3S and optimizing my prints for each always requires tweaking different settings. Eg. what speed did you print at? It's no secret that printing at super high speeds on the MK3s will drastically reduce quality, whereas the X1 Carbon excels at high speeds

[michaelwelday]

How has no one else made this video, genius and EXACTLY, and I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR AT THIS VERY

[LibertyEver]

It was great to see a comparison of these currently popular printers, even if it couldn't be a perfect test. Optimizing a slicer for one feature over another can make a large difference, although using standard settings from each manufacturer was probably as good as the test could be. I would have liked to have seen the print times for each of these parts. It seems that the two corexy printers (K1 and X1C) were fastest and produced the best prints.

[tomyocom]

Hi, you kind of degraded all the other printers because of the text, the x1 carbon did not even print the text and you said it was the best. I know you SEEM to think all the other parameters out weigh this decision but you gave an immense amount of weight to the text in your OWN analysis .

[RoelEngelen]

Cool, having a Prusa MK3+ and a Bambulab X1C that prints equal or worse after recent firmware updates - I'm thinking of switching back to a MK4.

[BaioWithMayo]

Def think this needs to show us the slicer settings as well. I've found especially text can be modified/different between slicers (like the ones where it didn't even try to extrude)

Especially on a test like this that doesn't include speed and we are just looking for quality, using the same slicer with same settings the whole way through would help alot, with the exception being retraction settings on a bowden vs direct drive extruder since that would be unfair

[xsvforce]

Excellent test, thank you. How did the print times compare between the printers?

[ashleysdprintshop]

Here are some rough estimates of print times when I run the "all in one 3d test" in each manufacture slicer.
Pla filament .2mm layer height, .4 nozzle except Prusa XL

*Prusa slicer* Generic PLA and Prusament filament give similar times.

Prusa Mk3(Quality) 4hr 47min
Prusa Mk4(Quality) 4 hr 3 min
Prusa MK4(.2mm alpha firmware) 2hr 8 min
Prusa XL 3hr 17 min

*Bambu Studio*
Bambu Lab X1C with generic pla filament profile 1hr 58min
Bambu Lab X1C with Bambu filament profile 1hr 42min

With better text with arachne wall generation checked only adds a min or 2.
Bambu Lab X1C with generic pla filament profile 1hr 59min
Bambu Lab X1C with Bambu filament profile 1hr 44min

*Creality print*
Creality K1 1hr 49 min

[jacylegault]

Question: Were the slicing parameters and resolution as close to apples to apples? Also, do you get the PLA to the same dryness level or use the exact same roll for the quality comparison?

[ErikBlack]

Glad to see a comparison of all these machines!

Little bit of feedback, the order that you discussed all the machines felt all over the place, and it was hard to keep track as to what each machine did as the video went along.

With the time-lapse at the start, I saw the order was PXL, K1, X1C, Mk4, Mk3s. So I had that as an order in my head. Starting with the Mk3s next was fine, I figured the video was going to go right to left, but the next machine was the K1, so not even 5 seconds after leaving the Mk3s, I was questioning if it was actually the PXL I was just listening about. The order the machines were talked about ended up being 5, 2, 4, 3, 1.

Overall it would have been easier to follow along if the machines were discussed either in an order that they were displayed, or in a brand/age order, like Mk3s, Mk4, PXL, K1, X1C, or something like that which grouped the prusas together in some kind of order

[davidhirsch]

I dont feel this was a good unbiased test. You should have used the same size nozzle in every printer. How can you not consider the extruded text? If one printer can do it well, then why cant the others? The x1c had the same nozle size as the mk4 and completely missed features. I think thats more important than an extra 5deg of overhang.

[hemi]

I have both the Bambu X1 carbon and the Creality K1 and the print speed and quality are both very similar, but I would agree the Bambo does print slightly better.