Yes, the xTool P3's 5W infrared module can mark metal business cards and coins. In my tests it produced a cleaner black aluminum card than the P3's CO₂ head, made a dark mark on brushed stainless steel without warping the card, and created visible artwork on brass and stainless coins. Its limitation was depth: even after ten passes, the coin engravings still felt mostly smooth.
That makes this IR module a practical choice for surface marking, identification, logos, and light decorative work. It did not behave like a fiber laser that can build deeper relief and texture. This guide records the settings, times, comparisons, and limitations from my hands-on tests so you can use them as starting points for your own material tests.
Quick verdict: good for marking, limited for depth
The 5W IR module was the best tool in this test for clean marks on the metal samples I used. It removed the black business-card coating cleanly, produced a dark mark on brushed stainless steel, and handled both brass and stainless coins. The strongest result was not a deep carving. It was a controlled surface mark with less unwanted heating than I saw from the CO₂ test on brushed stainless.
Choose the P3 IR module if your work is mainly logos, names, QR codes, light artwork, or other surface marks and you already have the P3. Look toward a fiber laser if your project depends on clearly recessed details, tactile texture, repeated coin production, or deep engraving.
These results came from a 5W IR module. I would not assume that a 2W or 3W module will match the same speed or number of passes. Material composition, coating, surface finish, focus, and artwork also affect the result, so treat every setting below as a tested starting point rather than a universal preset.
All settings from the test
| Material and test | Laser | Power | Speed | Resolution | Passes | Recorded time | Observed result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Black aluminum business card | P3 CO₂ | 10% | 300 mm/s | 200 lines/cm | Not stated | 4:27 | Removed the coating, but looked less clean than IR |
| Black aluminum business card | 5W IR | 65% | 300 mm/s | 200 lines/cm | Not stated | 3:55 | Cleaner coating removal and slightly faster |
| Brushed stainless card | P3 CO₂ | 55% | 100 mm/s | 200 lines/cm | Not stated | 6:29 | Gray mark; card showed heat-related warping |
| Brushed stainless card | 5W IR | 95% | 150 mm/s | 200 lines/cm | 1 | 3:52 | Lighter mark than the two-pass result |
| Brushed stainless card | 5W IR | 95% | 150 mm/s | 200 lines/cm | 2 | 9:29 | Cleaner, darker result; card stayed flat |
| Brass coin, pirate design | 5W IR | 95% | 300 mm/s | 200 lines/cm | 2 | 7:38 | Visible but light; artwork choice also hurt readability |
| Brass coin, parrot design | 5W IR | 95% | 150 mm/s | 250 lines/cm | 10 | 54:01 | Clearer artwork, but little tactile depth |
| Stainless steel coin, parrot design | 5W IR | 95% | 150 mm/s | 250 lines/cm | 10 | About 54:01 | Good visible mark, still largely smooth |
The video does not state the pass count for the black-card jobs or the CO₂ stainless job, so the table leaves those values unspecified. It records the other settings exactly as demonstrated. Test a small area or a spare blank before using a finished item.
Black aluminum business cards: IR was cleaner and faster
The first comparison used coated black aluminum business cards. I engraved the same business-card design with the P3 CO₂ head and the 5W IR module. Both produced a usable card, but the IR result looked cleaner because it removed the coating more evenly around the logo, text, and QR codes.
The CO₂ job ran at 10% power, 300 mm/s, and 200 lines/cm. It finished in 4 minutes 27 seconds. The IR job ran at 65% power with the same 300 mm/s speed and 200 lines/cm resolution, finishing in 3 minutes 55 seconds.
That is a 32-second difference on this design, so speed alone was not the main reason to choose IR. Surface quality was the more useful improvement. If your black card is a different alloy or uses a different coating, repeat the test rather than assuming these numbers will strip it the same way.
Brushed stainless steel: a darker mark without the CO₂ warping
The stainless test exposed a bigger difference. The CO₂ sample produced a gray mark on the brushed stainless card, while the IR sample produced a darker black mark. The CO₂ card also developed a slight bend or warp. The IR card stayed flat and did not feel hot when I handled it after the job.
For the CO₂ sample, I used 55% power, 100 mm/s, and 200 lines/cm. That job took 6 minutes 29 seconds. For the IR sample, I used 95% power, 150 mm/s, and 200 lines/cm. One pass took 3 minutes 52 seconds, but the mark was lighter than I wanted. The two-pass version took 9 minutes 29 seconds and gave me the cleaner, darker result shown in the comparison.
This was brushed stainless steel. I did not run the CO₂ head on a mirror-finish metal surface. xTool's official P3 IR module FAQ says not to process mirror-finish metals because reflected laser energy can damage the module. The manufacturer also describes the IR accessory as an engraving and scoring module, not a metal-cutting or embossing tool. Follow the machine's current material and safety guidance rather than extending this brushed-card test to a reflective blank.
Coin test 1: two passes were visible but light
I engraved five coins during the broader test and discussed three representative results in detail. The first was a brass coin with a pirate ship and pirate design. At 95% power, 300 mm/s, 200 lines/cm, and two passes, the job took 7 minutes 38 seconds.
The mark did not go very dark, and the artwork itself was difficult to read on the finished coin. That matters when judging a laser test: poor contrast can come from the interaction between the material, settings, and source image. Increasing passes is only one option. A cleaner, higher-contrast design can sometimes improve readability without asking the laser to create depth it cannot produce efficiently.
Coin test 2: ten passes improved the image, not the depth
For the second brass coin, I used a parrot design and slowed the IR module to 150 mm/s. Power remained at 95%, resolution increased to 250 lines/cm, and I ran ten passes. The job took 54 minutes 1 second.
The parrot looked better than the earlier pirate design, but running ten passes did not turn the result into a deeply engraved coin. When I rubbed a finger across the face, it still felt smooth. This is the clearest practical limit from the project: more passes can strengthen the visible mark, yet the 5W IR module remains a marking tool.
I ran the same parrot settings on a stainless steel coin. It also took about 54 minutes and produced a result I liked visually. It still lacked the textured depth I would expect from the right fiber-laser workflow.
IR versus CO₂ versus fiber: which one fits the job?
| Goal | P3 CO₂ head | P3 5W IR module | Fiber laser |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remove a coating from a black aluminum card | Worked in this test | Cleaner result in this test | May be capable, but not tested here |
| Mark brushed stainless steel | Gray mark with heat-related warping in this test | Darker mark; sample stayed flat | Not tested in this video |
| Mark brass or stainless coins | Not attempted because of reflective surfaces | Visible light engraving | The practical direction when depth is required |
| Produce tactile, recessed coin detail | Not established | Ten-pass samples still felt smooth | Better suited to the stated goal, though not compared directly here |
| Use an add-on with an existing P3 | Built-in CO₂ system | Compatible P3 accessory | Requires a separate machine in the workflow discussed |
This is a task comparison, not a controlled review of a specific fiber laser. I did not run a fiber machine beside the P3. The fiber column reflects the workflow need discussed in the video: move to a suitable fiber system when depth and texture are requirements, then validate that machine on the exact metal.
A repeatable test workflow for your own metal blank
- Identify the surface. Separate coated aluminum, brushed metal, and reflective bare metal instead of treating every card or coin as the same material.
- Check current manufacturer guidance. xTool explicitly warns against mirror-finish metal with the P3 IR module. Do not use an attractive blank until you know the surface is appropriate.
- Start with a spare. Use a material test grid or a disposable blank to compare power, speed, resolution, and pass count.
- Judge contrast and heat separately. A dark mark is useful, but also inspect warping, discoloration outside the design, and whether the blank stayed flat.
- Use artwork that matches the process. Strong shapes and clean contrast are easier to evaluate than a detailed image that already has muddy values.
- Stop when passes no longer add useful value. Ten passes took about 54 minutes in my coin tests and still did not create meaningful depth.
- Record the exact blank. The same nominal metal can behave differently when its alloy, finish, coating, or supplier changes.
If you are still preparing the machine, start with my xTool P3 first-run setup guide. It covers the shipping hardware, coolant, air handling, optical-path check, and first jobs before you add another material workflow.
Common mistakes this test helps avoid
Treating a visible mark as deep engraving
The coins looked engraved on camera, but the ten-pass examples still felt smooth. Decide whether you need contrast or physical depth before choosing the tool.
Copying settings without matching the surface
The brushed stainless card was deliberately different from a mirror-finish blank. Coatings and finishes change laser absorption and reflection. Match the material first, then tune the settings.
Assuming more passes solve every weak result
Passes add time and can add heat. The two-pass stainless card improved visibly, while ten passes on the coins still did not create deep texture. Use passes only when the next pass gives a useful improvement.
Comparing only completion time
The IR black-card test was modestly faster, but its cleaner coating removal mattered more. On stainless, the darker two-pass IR result took longer than the CO₂ attempt but avoided the warping seen on that CO₂ sample. Evaluate the finished part, not just the timer.
FAQ
Can the xTool P3 5W IR module engrave metal?
It created visible marks on coated aluminum cards, brushed stainless cards, brass coins, and stainless coins in this test. The coin results were shallow enough to feel mostly smooth, so “marking” is the more accurate expectation when depth matters.
What settings worked for black aluminum business cards?
My tested IR starting point was 65% power, 300 mm/s, and 200 lines/cm. The job took 3 minutes 55 seconds for this design and blank. The video does not state the pass count for this card.
What settings worked for stainless steel cards?
On the brushed stainless blank, I used 95% IR power, 150 mm/s, and 200 lines/cm. One pass took 3:52 and was light. Two passes took 9:29 and produced the darker result I preferred.
Can the P3 IR module deeply engrave coins?
It did not create meaningful tactile depth in these tests. The ten-pass brass and stainless parrot engravings looked good but still felt smooth. A suitable fiber laser is the direction I would consider when recessed coin detail is the goal.
Can I use these settings on reflective metal?
Do not assume so. I avoided the CO₂ head on the reflective coins, and xTool says the P3 IR module should not process mirror-finish metals because reflection may damage the module. Check the current official guidance for your surface.
What I would choose
For light marking on business cards, tags, and occasional coins, the 5W IR accessory gives the P3 a useful capability without adding a completely separate machine. For repeated coin work or designs that must have real depth, its long multi-pass times and smooth results point toward a fiber laser instead.
Use the laser engraving and cutting guide hub to continue through the related P3 setup and project guides. If you want another real metal and rotary example, the Artilume A4 review includes a stainless dog tag and tumbler workflow.