https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/RSS/?TopicID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31 DisplayFusion RSS: Display Fusion on Terminal Server - High CPU utilization Fri, 17 Apr 2026 01:15:53 GMT en hourly 1 https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/RSS/?TopicID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31 https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#5 Tue, 09 Dec 2014 15:22:44 GMT Binary Fortress Software https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#5 DisplayFusion The latest versions should indeed be using all cores. It definitely does on all of my systems here ]]> https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#4 Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:39:39 GMT Binary Fortress Software https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#4 DisplayFusion Thanks for the responses Keith!

I haven't updated the servers to the beta version yet as it's a chore to get everyone off of them long enough to work on them.

I have noticed a different issue with the 5.1.1 version that we rolled back to though and wanted to make sure that it's not a problem in the beta that you mentioned.

Basically, even with the advanced setting set to run on all CPU cores, Display Fusion seems to only be using a single core and even though it is using less CPU, collectively it's maxing out the one core. That in turn creates an extremely sluggish taskbar on the second monitor and huge delays just trying to do anything with Display fusion.

Do you know if that issue was something that was addressed between the 5.1.1 and the beta release? ]]> https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#3 Sat, 22 Nov 2014 02:42:08 GMT Binary Fortress Software https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#3 DisplayFusion We've just released a new DisplayFusion beta version (http://www.displayfusion.com/Download/Beta/) and we've made some performance improvements that should hopefully help with the CPU usage. Please let us know if you still run into any trouble after updating.

Thanks! ]]> https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#2 Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:13:26 GMT Binary Fortress Software https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31#2 DisplayFusion We have noticed some increase in CPU usage in 6.0 and up, and we're currently investigating. In the meantime, if you'd like to roll back to 5.1.1, here's the link: http://www.binaryfortress.com/Files/DisplayFusion/DisplayFusionSetup-5.1.1.exe

We'll keep you posted as soon as we have more news

Thanks! ]]> https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31 Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:03:13 GMT Binary Fortress Software https://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/display-fusion-on-terminal-server-high-cpu-utilization/?ID=5b37ff2a-b8fd-40be-9cf5-311bf111ff31 DisplayFusion It seems recently (within the past couple of months), something changed with Display Fusion so that each user on our Terminal Server uses anywhere from 1-5% CPU for the DisplayFusion.exe process. Cumulatively, this is eating up anywhere from 50-80% of the processor on an 8 core server.

I've tried setting the CPU priority to low in the advanced settings but that doesn't seem to change anything.

We're running v6.1.2 currently on two separate Terminal Servers and both of the servers are seeing the same issue.

Is this normal for Display Fusion, or is there something wrong here? ]]>