When is AtomicInteger preferrable over synchronized?

Question

Since AtomicInteger can be at at least an order of magnitude slower than an int protected by synchronized, why would I ever want to use AtomicInteger?

For example, if all I want is to increment an int value in a thread-safe manner, why not always use:

synchronized(threadsafeint) {
  threadsafeint++;
}

instead of using the much slower AtomicInteger.incrementAndGet()?

Answer 1

Since AtomicInteger can be at at least an order of magnitude slower than an int protected by synchronized, why would I ever want to use AtomicInteger?

AtomicInteger is much faster.

static final Object LOCK1 = new Object();
static final Object LOCK2 = new Object();
static int i1 = 0;
static int i2 = 0;
static final AtomicInteger ai1 = new AtomicInteger();
static final AtomicInteger ai2 = new AtomicInteger();

public static void main(String... args) throws IOException {
    for(int i=0;i<5;i++) {
        testSyncInt();
        testAtomicInt();
    }
}

private static void testSyncInt() {
    long start = System.nanoTime();
    int runs = 10000000;
    for(int i=0;i< runs;i+=2) {
        synchronized (LOCK1) {
            i1++;
        }
        synchronized (LOCK2) {
            i2++;
        }
    }
    long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("sync + incr: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs);
}

private static void testAtomicInt() {
    long start = System.nanoTime();
    int runs = 10000000;
    for(int i=0;i< runs;i+=2) {
        ai1.incrementAndGet();
        ai2.incrementAndGet();
    }
    long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs);
}

prints

sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 32.4 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 20.6 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 31.4 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 12.9 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 29.6 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 12.9 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 35.1 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 16.6 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 29.9 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 13.0 ns

---

Adding some contention as @assylias suggests. It shows that when you are only really using one thread the CPU can optimise the access.

static final Object LOCK1 = new Object();
static final Object LOCK2 = new Object();
static int i1 = 0;
static int i2 = 0;
static final AtomicInteger ai1 = new AtomicInteger();
static final AtomicInteger ai2 = new AtomicInteger();

public static void main(String... args) throws  ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
    for(int i=0;i<5;i++) {
        testSyncInt();
        testAtomicInt();
    }
}

private static void testSyncInt() throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
    long start = System.nanoTime();
    final int runs = 1000000;
    ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
    List<Future<Void>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
    for(int t=0;t<8;t++) {
        futures.add(es.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
            public Void call() throws Exception {
                for (int i = 0; i < runs; i += 2) {
                    synchronized (LOCK1) {
                        i1++;
                    }
                    synchronized (LOCK2) {
                        i2++;
                    }
                }
                return null;
            }
        }));
    }
    for (Future<Void> future : futures) {
        future.get();
    }
    es.shutdown();
    long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("sync + incr: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs/2);
}

private static void testAtomicInt() throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
    long start = System.nanoTime();
    final int runs = 1000000;
    ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
    List<Future<Void>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
    for(int t=0;t<8;t++) {
        futures.add(es.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
            public Void call() throws Exception {
                for (int i = 0; i < runs; i += 2) {
                    ai1.incrementAndGet();
                    ai2.incrementAndGet();
                }
                return null;
            }
        }));
    }
    for (Future<Void> future : futures) {
        future.get();
    }
    es.shutdown();
    long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
    System.out.printf("incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs/2);
}

prints

sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 478.6 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 191.5 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 437.5 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 169.8 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 408.1 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 180.8 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 511.5 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 313.4 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 441.6 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 219.7 ns

Answer 2

if you really want to get more details on why java.util.concurrent stuff is better and what the difference is compared to the classical synchronized approach, read this link (and the whole blog generally)