Bambu Lab’s X2D turns multicolor FDM’s ugliest trade-off into a measurable engineering problem: in Notebookcheck’s 12-gram Benchy test, two nozzles cut print time from 5.8 to 2.7 hours and waste from around 70 grams to around 20 grams. That is the real story beneath the dual-nozzle headline.
The new analysis from Notebookcheck is not claiming magic. It is more useful than that. It shows where Bambu Lab X2D materially improves multi-filament printing, and where physics still refuses to cooperate.
The X2D attacks the purge problem without making waste disappear
The X2D’s two-nozzle setup targets a familiar desktop 3D printing compromise: attractive multicolor or multi-material parts often come with ugly filament piles, longer print times, and sacrificial tower material.
Notebookcheck’s core distinction is between purging and priming.
Purging happens when a single nozzle switches filament. Molten material already inside the hot end cannot simply be retracted away, so the printer must flush old material before the new color or filament is clean enough to print. That is where the familiar waste blobs come from.
Priming is different. It is the stabilization phase after the nozzle becomes active. The hot end needs a short period where flow and pressure settle before extrusion becomes reproducible. The X2D can avoid the repeated flushing problem when both nozzles are assigned correctly, but it cannot eliminate priming because only one nozzle prints at a time.
“Does the X2D enable multi-material printing with zero waste? No.”
That “no” matters. The X2D is not a zero-waste printer. It is a lower-waste printer in the right jobs.
Two nozzles shift the burden from filament flushing to extrusion stability
In practical terms, the Bambu Lab X2D keeps two colors or materials physically separated across two nozzles. That reduces the need to force one filament through the same hot end after another.
That design is most useful when a print repeatedly alternates between two materials or colors. Instead of unloading, loading, and flushing through a single path, the printer can switch active nozzles. The software assigns print regions to each nozzle, and Notebookcheck says configuring two-nozzle prints is “very easy,” with the software suggesting sensible groupings.
The gain is not only decorative. Notebookcheck points to support structures as another strong use case. A second nozzle can print support material separately from the model material. Bambu Lab sells PVA for this role; it is water-soluble, so supports can dissolve in a water bath instead of being removed mechanically. Notebookcheck also notes that PVA “is not inexpensive,” which makes efficient use more than a convenience.
For readers tracking practical hardware value rather than spec-sheet noise — the same lens we used in Anker Nano USB-C Hub Grabs Dual 4K Screens for $36 and Two Textured Dials Make Casio Edifice Look Pricier — the X2D question is not “does it have two nozzles?” It is “how much time and material does the second nozzle actually save on finished parts?”
Notebookcheck’s Benchy test shows the savings — and the catch
Notebookcheck used the Multicolor-3D-Benchy from 3Designs under standard settings. The model weighed 12 grams.
| X2D print mode | Finished model | Waste | Print time | Main cause |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both nozzles used | 12 grams | around 20 grams | 2.7 hours | Mostly tower material for priming/stabilization |
| One nozzle used | 12 grams | around 70 grams | 5.8 hours | Includes 52 grams from flushing |
| Both nozzles, priming skipped | 12 grams | Not quantified | 1.7 hours | Quality drops sharply |
The headline improvement is clear. Using both nozzles cut the print time by more than half versus the single-nozzle workflow in this test, and waste fell by around 50 grams.
But the third row is the trap. Disabling priming pushed the time down to 1.7 hours, yet Notebookcheck says skipping priming “did not make sense” because print quality suffered heavily. Bambu Lab advises against it.
MLXIO analysis: this is the important constraint for buyers. The X2D’s advantage comes from removing most filament flushing, not from removing all sacrificial material. If a print requires frequent nozzle activation, the machine still needs a way to re-establish stable extrusion before putting material onto the part.
The X2D is not a toolchanger, but it narrows the practical gap
Dual-nozzle printing itself is not new. The more interesting point is whether Bambu can make the approach feel routine rather than fragile.
Notebookcheck’s findings suggest the second nozzle is useful because the software and hardware are integrated tightly enough that ordinary two-nozzle setup does not become a project of its own. The review also says using both nozzles does not necessarily reduce print quality, and parts can still appear as if they were made as a single piece.
There are limits. The secondary nozzle does not support TPU, and it has a lower maximum speed. Notebookcheck says those limits were not significant in practice during its testing, but they still define the X2D’s lane. This is not two identical, fully independent print systems inside one box.
That matters for material planning:
- Best fit: two-color prints, model-plus-support jobs, support interfaces, and prints with repeated transitions between two assigned materials.
- Weaker fit: single-material prototypes, basic PLA parts, or occasional color accents where the second nozzle may sit mostly idle.
- Specialist fit: water-soluble PVA supports, where material cost and cleanup quality may justify the extra setup.
Buyers should judge the X2D by waste per finished part, not by nozzle count
A simple one-color print will not suddenly become better because the X2D has a second nozzle. The machine’s value shows up when the print would otherwise force repeated material swaps through one nozzle.
That means buyers should measure jobs differently. Not just print time. Not just filament used. The useful metric is total cost per successful finished part:
- Waste grams: tower material and any flushed filament.
- Time penalty: extra hours from swaps, priming, and failed experiments.
- Material choice: especially when support materials such as PVA cost more.
- Quality risk: Notebookcheck’s no-priming test shows time savings can destroy surface results.
- Model geometry: Notebookcheck warns its figures depend heavily on the specific model.
MLXIO analysis: the X2D’s strongest case is not that it makes multi-material printing cheap. It makes the trade-off more rational. A user can spend less filament and less time on the same class of job, but only if the model benefits from two separated nozzles.
The X2D’s next test is messy, ordinary model geometry
The X2D has already answered one question: the second nozzle is not decorative. In Notebookcheck’s test, it produced a large reduction in waste and print time without necessarily harming quality.
The unresolved question is repeatability across less friendly prints. The evidence that would strengthen the case is simple: more models showing the same pattern under standard settings, especially support-heavy parts and multicolor prints with frequent transitions. The evidence that would weaken it would be equally clear: common jobs where priming towers erase much of the savings, or where the secondary nozzle’s material and speed limits force users back into single-nozzle workflows.
For now, the X2D looks less like a zero-waste breakthrough and more like a disciplined compromise. It does not abolish the cost of multi-material FDM. It cuts the worst part of that cost when the job fits the machine.
The Bottom Line
- The X2D shows a measurable way to reduce one of multicolor FDM printing’s biggest pain points: purge waste.
- Cutting print time from 5.8 to 2.7 hours could make complex multicolor jobs more practical for desktop users.
- The printer still is not zero-waste, so users need to understand the difference between reduced purging and unavoidable priming.
