Journal article

FastFlow: GPU Acceleration of Flow and Depression Routing for Landscape Simulation

Guillaume Cordonnier, Bernhard Kerbl, Aryamaan Jain, Brandon Finley, James Gain · 2024 · Wiley

7.3.2. Flow routing

Topographic variation does not have a significant impact on the performance of flow routing, so we benchmark flow routing solely on real terrains. We compare our algorithm against:

  • • Barnes [Bar19], who provides a GPU algorithm for flow routing based on a pre-ordering of the computation graph.
  • • Schott et al. [SPF+23], who use a GPU algorithm similar to ours, but without pointer jumping, which results in as many iterations as the node length of the longest river in the terrain (\sim \sqrt{n}).

Note that neither of these algorithms provides a solution for depression routing on the GPU. The results are illustrated in Figure 18, with an average speed-up of 10\times, 5\times, 3\times and 3\times against [Bar19] for each target resolution, respectively.

Figure 18: Performance of our flow routing against [Bar19] and [SPF+23]. The figure consists of four bar charts for terrain resolutions: 512x512, 1024x1024, 2048x2048, and 4096x4096. Each chart compares three methods: Ours (blue), [Bar19] (green), and [SPF+23] (light blue). The y-axis represents Time in milliseconds on a logarithmic scale. Ours consistently shows the lowest times across all resolutions and terrain types (Synthetic 1%, 5%, 15%, Real, Flat).
Figure 18: Performance of our flow routing against [Bar19] and [SPF+23]. The figure consists of four bar charts for terrain resolutions: 512x512, 1024x1024, 2048x2048, and 4096x4096. Each chart compares three methods: Ours (blue), [Bar19] (green), and [SPF+23] (light blue). The y-axis represents Time in milliseconds on a logarithmic scale. Ours consistently shows the lowest times across all resolutions and terrain types (Synthetic 1%, 5%, 15%, Real, Flat).

Figure 18: Performance of our flow routing against [Bar19] and [SPF+23].