No problem.
 
Correct, it only uses the amount of resources required to reach your FPS target. You can OC your card, but if it only needs 60% of the cards potential horsepower, it will only use that much.

Sabetumen4

HarryBojangles
No problem.
 
Correct, it only uses the amount of resources required to reach your FPS target. You can OC your card, but if it only needs 60% of the cards potential horsepower, it will only use that much.

 
So just to be clear, this feature is pretty beneficial for the user of the computer and the graphics card?

I had no idea after a year, this is a hott-topic with just 5 replies, lol.

Anyways, the feature is cool, but not really necessary...

Modern and even some legacy games allow you to set 'VSYNC' and/or lock refresh-rate to 60hz 90hz, 120hz if the said game allows to achieve the same thing as frame-rate target.
 
Unless you wish to be odd and use some unconventional FPS number to lock beyond 60, 90, 120fps, than precision frame-target is super-useful.

In addition, we can set within NVIDIA control panel vsync and or monitor refresh-rate locks + with the addition of NVIDIA inspector, you can literally set target-frame rate specifically for each game; which is the same feature precision uses =)

Hope this helps...

Sorry to revive old thread but this was first to show on Google when I got curious about the subject. I think there's more to it than mentioned.
 
I don't know if you are correct to compare it to VSYNC. What VSYNC does is, the GPU will render every frame at max potential but drop extra frames to show only up to 60fps which causes tearing and huge impact on input lag. Basically, your GPU is working hard just to throw them away. What Frame Rate Target seems to be doing is limiting the GPU utilization to only produce 60fps making GPU work less unless needed. You can see this evidence when you run a benchmark. Without this on, your GPU usage will be at 99-100% (assuming it can go well over 60fps to begin with) but with it on, fps will be capped at 60fps and usage will be less than full.
 
This is like having Gsync on cheap, only lower than 60fps will still show stuttering like on regular monitors because that's your monitor's limit. If your GPU can sustain fps above your current monitor max refresh rate, this feature is a godsend. Some games actually have fps limiter built in instead of vsync for very reason but this will allow for everything you do.
 
So if my understanding is correct, setting this feature on to your monitor's max refresh rate even with a G-Sync monitor and it will benefits you without any drawbacks like other 'sync' technologies.
 
Let me know if I'm getting this wrong.

bcarney1
BUMP...
 
I'd like to know the answer as well. I have single GTX 980Ti @1.4 ghz with i5 3570k @ 4.2ghz and run G-Sync Monitor at 144. In BF4, I measure FPS sometimes above 200  Although FPS rarely go above 144, it does happen, so should I set target FPS at 144 max?  Doing so can benefit with no drawback, right?  I plan to pickup another 980Ti to run SLI.  The FPS should be even higher in BF4. However, the new BF5 may be another matter.
 
rebcon1 said:
....."So if my understanding is correct, setting this feature on to your monitor's max refresh rate even with a G-Sync monitor and it will benefits you without any drawbacks like other 'sync' technologies."

I would set the frame limit at 2 - 3 FPS under the 144Hz.  Maybe at 140 if you prefer round numbers..  This way you'll always be using Gsync.