i would guess that this will depend on the switch itself. it needs to be able to support 3840 x 2160 resolution and lower, and be able to auto detect the incoming signal and match that for outgoing. you may have to look thru the manual and/or ask on the mfg's website (email/forum) to know for sure.
the other options are upgrading the gtx 480 so both computers can run 3840 x 2160, or run the second computer via remote desktop. depending on your version of windows, you may or may not have that option to use the built in windows remote desktop software. there are free alternatives available if you still want to do this. when i use multiple computers, i find it easier to use a remote desktop program. this treats the other computer(s) as an open program that i can just switch between on the taskbar. this also allows the other computer to be in another room or location, as long as they can still be connected on a local network.
I guess my plan is to buy the new monitor then see how it goes switching between the two PCs.
The two PCs sit side by side under my desk.
The older one (5 years) (Windows 7) (GTX 480) runs Pr 6.0 but I use it mostly for Photoshop.
The newer one (2 years) (Windows 8.1) (GTX 640) runs Pr CC.
If there is a problem switching between the two PCs with the new monitor, can I replace the GTX 480 with a GTX 750?
I could also upgrade both PCs by replacing the GTX 640 with a newer GPU and moving the GTX 640 to the older PC.
Will there be a noticeable increase in performance of my newer PC running Pr CC with a newer GPU and what GPU is recommended for it?
im not finding a gtx 640, but a gt 640, is that what you have? the gtx 480 is alot faster than the gt 640, but photoshop on your old pc may be ok with that.
premiere cc does use the gpu more, however it still places most of the demand on the cpu. it really depends on which effects and such, are in use on the timeline/clips. CUDA, OpenCL, Mercury Playback Engine, and Adobe Premiere Pro depending on how many gpu effects you are using, multi-camera, export format, etc, the increase in gpu performance may or may not be very noticeable.
the next version of premiere should be out very soon. it will finally finish incorporating adobe's buyout of iridas speedgrade into premiere to upgrade its aging code and features. as speedgrade places a heavy demand on the gpu, i am expecting an increase demand of the gpu in PP to work with those new features. the gtx 750 and gtx 750 ti are a bit slower than the gtx 480, but for the 2 year old pc, the 750 ti may be a good match to the cpu. if you want an upgrade from the gtx 480 with room to grow, the gtx 960 will be the next step up. if you are planning on working with any 4k material you can get a gtx 960 4gb memory version.
if you decide to go with the gtx 960, make sure that the computer has a pci express (gpu) power lead to power that card. some versions of the gtx 750 ti don't require this, like some of the evga brand.
I looked up the hardware that I have.
This GPU was purchased for a PC I assembled in 2010 runs PP CS6 but mostly PS CS5. I am not concerned with its performance other than I need it to conveniently drive the new high resolution 3840 x 2160 monitor that I am planning to buy.
EVGA 015-P3-1480-AR GeForce GTX 480 (Fermi) 1536MB 384-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP
This GPU was purchased for a PC I assembled in 2013. I use the this machine constantly for editing with PP CC.
EVGA GeForce GTX 680 4096 MB GDDR5 Dual Dual-Link DVI/mHDMI/DP/SLI Graphics Card (04G-P4-2686-KR)
Both systems work well the way they are but I have noticed that the 2013 PC has trouble with the latest version of PP CC (2014) exporting files.
That seems to be my big concern these days - how does it take to produce an MP4 file for an hour long video?
I have both versions of PP CC on my PC and I use the older version.
I do not plan to do 4K editing but I am concerned about the need to use the latest version of CC PP.
I guess the question is if I have a problem switching between my PCs with a new monitor should I upgrade the newer PC or the older one.
the gtx 680 in the 2013 computer would be overkill for the 2010 computer, and should be good enough for the 2013 computer running premiere cc. the gtx 680 is around the same speed as the gtx 960. the 2010 PS computer shouldn't need anything more powerful than what is in there, so you could just replace the gtx 480 with a gtx 750.
the render/export time of mp4 or any video, really depends on whats on the timeline (effects and source media codecs), the quality of the export settings, as well as the hardware. i don't know a general time mp4 should export at. currently premiere does not use the gpu to encode the h264 export, only to decode it. so if you are looking to upgrade the gpu to boost the export, it probably wont help any. you can use the windows task manager, resource monitor, and GPU-Z to see how your computers hardware is working during an export. you will probably find the cpu being maxed out and the gpu usage on the low side. if for some reason the gpu usage is high, you then know it might be worth upgrading the gpu on the 2013 computer.
if you are looking to upgrade you can list your hardware and we can review it and recommend upgrades. if you want, you can visit this site and download the benchmark project. Benchmark Instructions you can then see how CC does vs CS6 and your computer vs others.
That is an interesting debate when I built the first and the later PC - what does GPU acceleration do to affect file export.
If you shut off GPU acceleration it will take 3 time longer to build an MP4 file - it must be doing something on both of my PCs.
You would think that the GPU can only receive instructions from the CPU and display what it is supposed to display.
But from discussing the idea on this forum I got the idea that the CPU can put data into the memory of the GPU, instruct the GPU to process that data, retrieve the data, and use the processed data to build the MP4 file.
I did get great test results from my 2013 PC after a big hassle updating the driver for the 640.
It has 6 core CPU, SSD for the OS, and a RAID card running 8 x 1TB drives but it is 2 years old.
the adobe article i linked previously for cuda, mercury playback engine, list all sorts of things that cuda does help with. nvidia video cards and intel hd graphics both have the ability to encode h264 at the hardware level, which is incredibly fast compared to the cpu, but sadly premiere does not have the ability to use these. the compression tests i've seen for nvidia h264 were lower quality, while the intel quality was very good. someone tried making a plugin for the nvidia cards, but i haven't tried it. NVidia GPU-accelerated H264-encoder plugin, ready for public testing
if you have intel hd graphics in your cpu, you can export out of premiere using a fast codec like dnxhd, then transcode using another program that can encode to h264 with intel's quicksync. handbrake is a great and free transcoder that supposedly uses intel's quicksync.
i dont think we are at the point with computers yet, where the cpu and gpu really work together. amd has been pushing for that for a while now, AMD’s “heterogeneous Uniform Memory Access” coming this year in Kaveri | Ars Technica
depending on the cpu and motherboard, you may be able to replace the cpu with a newer one and get a good boost. you can look on the motherboards website to see its supported cpu list.
I would contend that you should not just reads specs. and count on a new 4K display playback working by simply plug-n-playing like it did for HD, especially if you want to get 60Hz refresh (30Hz is too jumpy for PC mouse movements IMHO). I would encourage you to buy the monitor and get it working with your current PC that supports the 4K, with your current switcher (or planned upgrade switcher), and with cables that are long enough to work for your situation before you move much further.
I have a LG 4096 x 2160 x 60 Hz 31" monitor (killer monitor BTW) and do not use a switcher for 4K use, so my situation is a bit different, but I can assure you that Displayport is a finiky beast when pushed to its limits. I am currently using a 6 foot cable, but need a 12 or 15 foot to situate my PC sit in a sound-reducing cabinet. And unfortunately, nobody makes longer than a 9 foot cable that works with my monitor for the full resolution at 60 Hz (HDMI can go much longer distances, however my monitor does not support HDMI 2.0, so HDMI cables limits me to 30 Hz). Many cables say that they do, but nobody has gotten them to work (with LG anyway).