It’s not uncommon for us to face queries such as:
“Why do the models printed with our high-value industrial 3D printers appear less impressive than those from my inexpensive desktop printer?”
“Why does your industrial 3D printer demand such a high wall thickness when I can print them just as successfully on my low-cost desktop 3D printer?”
We appreciate your curiosity and are here to address these concerns with our expertise.
The comparison between industrial-grade and consumer-grade 3D printers reveals a nuanced landscape, where the correlation between cost and performance is not as straightforward as it might initially appear. This complexity is especially pronounced when comparing printers across different technological platforms, rather than within a single technology category.
A closer examination of these technologies across several key performance metrics elucidates this intricate relationship, the comparison is not absolute though:
Minimal Wall Thickness
FDM > LCD/DLP > SLA > SLS
When comparing technologies based on their ability to produce thin walls, Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) printers typically excel, capable of creating horizontal layers as thin as 0.1-0.2mm. This low thickness is attributed to their method of extruding melted materials directly and continuously onto the build platform.
Conversely, Stereolithography (SLA) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) technologies, which cure or fuse liquid and powder materials respectively, face challenges in achieving these thin dimensions. The inherent stresses produced during their curing or fusing processes can lead to warping or damage, making a minimum wall thickness of 0.8-1mm a safer benchmark for these printers to ensure structural integrity.
LCD/DLP printers have the advantage of lower curing power and fine pixelated screens during the curing process. This enables you to create thinner walls of about 0.3-0.5mm, which are usually thinner than what you can achieve using SLA/SLS printers. However, do keep in mind that printing a large wall with such low thickness might not be feasible due to material toughness limitations.
Detail Resolution
LCD/DLP > SLA > SLS > FDM
The quest for high-resolution details sees a shift in favor of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) and Digital Light Processing (DLP) technologies. Thanks to their utilization of finely pixelated screens to achieve exposure resolution, these printers surpass their SLA and SLS counterparts, which rely on small laser spots, and notably outperform FDM printers, whose nozzles typically feature diameters larger than 0.4mm. This makes LCD/DLP printers particularly suited for intricate models and artwork, though considerations regarding minimum wall thickness remain pertinent.
Material Strength
FDM > SLS/MJF > SLA > LCD/DLP
In the arena of strength of the printed parts, FDM technology claims the top spot, boasting the capability to work with a broad spectrum of thermoplastics. This versatility includes the ability to print with high-performance materials such as carbon fiber-reinforced nylon/PEEK/ULTEM etc.
Meanwhile, SLS and Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) technologies offer a narrower material selection, typically limited to PA12, PA11,PP,PS and TPU.
The resin-based processes of SLA and LCD/DLP printers produce the least robust materials, with SLA having a slight edge due to its more potent curing laser, thereby offering slightly improved material strength.
This cross-technology comparison illuminates the distinct advantages and limitations inherent to each 3D printing technology, underscoring the importance of aligning printer selection with specific project requirements rather than making assumptions based solely on price or conventional wisdom.