唯一的区别是:同步块允许颗粒状锁定，不像同步方法

基本上同步块或方法被用来编写线程安全的代码，以避免内存不一致的错误。

这个问题很老了，在过去的7年里，很多事情都发生了变化。 为了线程安全，引入了新的编程结构。

您可以通过使用高级并发API而不是同步块来实现线程安全。该文档页提供了实现线程安全的良好编程结构。

锁对象支持简化许多并发应用程序的锁定习惯用法。

executor为启动和管理线程定义了高级API。concurrent提供的执行器实现提供了适合大型应用程序的线程池管理。

并发集合使管理大型数据集合变得更容易，并且可以大大减少同步的需要。

原子变量具有最小化同步和帮助避免内存一致性错误的特性。

ThreadLocalRandom(在JDK 7中)提供了从多个线程有效生成伪随机数的功能。

更好的synchronized替代品是ReentrantLock，它使用Lock API

一个可重入互斥锁，其基本行为和语义与使用同步方法和语句访问的隐式监视锁相同，但具有扩展功能。

锁的例子:

class X {
   private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
   // ...

   public void m() {
     lock.lock();  // block until condition holds
     try {
       // ... method body
     } finally {
       lock.unlock()
     }
   }
 }

其他编程结构也可以参考java.util.concurrent和java.util.concurrent.atomic包。

参考这个相关的问题:

同步vs锁定

关于使用同步块的重要提示:小心你使用的锁对象!

上面user2277816的代码片段说明了这一点，将字符串字面值的引用用作锁定对象。 意识到字符串字面值在Java中是自动互缩的，您应该开始看到问题所在:在字面值“锁”上同步的每段代码都共享同一个锁!这很容易导致完全不相关的代码段发生死锁。

您需要注意的不仅仅是String对象。装箱的原语也是一种危险，因为autoboxing和valueOf方法可以重用相同的对象，这取决于值。

有关更多信息，请参阅: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/java/LCK01-J.+Do+not+synchronize+on+objects+that+may+be+reused

唯一真正的区别是同步块可以选择在哪个对象上同步。同步方法只能使用'this'(或同步类方法的相应Class实例)。例如，它们在语义上是等价的:

synchronized void foo() {
  ...
}

void foo() {
    synchronized (this) {
      ...
    }
}

后者更灵活，因为它可以竞争任何对象(通常是成员变量)的关联锁。它也更细粒度，因为您可以在块之前和块之后执行并发代码，但仍然在方法中。当然，您也可以通过将并发代码重构为单独的非同步方法来轻松地使用同步方法。使用任何使代码更容易理解的方法。

大多数情况下，我使用它来同步对列表或映射的访问，但我不想阻止对对象的所有方法的访问。

在下面的代码中，修改列表的线程不会阻塞等待正在修改映射的线程。如果方法在对象上是同步的，那么每个方法都必须等待，即使它们所做的修改不会冲突。

private List<Foo> myList = new ArrayList<Foo>();
private Map<String,Bar) myMap = new HashMap<String,Bar>();

public void put( String s, Bar b ) {
  synchronized( myMap ) {
    myMap.put( s,b );
    // then some thing that may take a while like a database access or RPC or notifying listeners
  }
}

public void hasKey( String s, ) {
  synchronized( myMap ) {
    myMap.hasKey( s );
  }
}

public void add( Foo f ) {
  synchronized( myList ) {
    myList.add( f );
// then some thing that may take a while like a database access or RPC or notifying listeners
  }
}

public Thing getMedianFoo() {
  Foo med = null;
  synchronized( myList ) {
    Collections.sort(myList);
    med = myList.get(myList.size()/2); 
  }
  return med;
}

Synchronizing with threads. 1) NEVER use synchronized(this) in a thread it doesn't work. Synchronizing with (this) uses the current thread as the locking thread object. Since each thread is independent of other threads, there is NO coordination of synchronization. 2) Tests of code show that in Java 1.6 on a Mac the method synchronization does not work. 3) synchronized(lockObj) where lockObj is a common shared object of all threads synchronizing on it will work. 4) ReenterantLock.lock() and .unlock() work. See Java tutorials for this.

The following code shows these points. It also contains the thread-safe Vector which would be substituted for the ArrayList, to show that many threads adding to a Vector do not lose any information, while the same with an ArrayList can lose information. 0) Current code shows loss of information due to race conditions A) Comment the current labeled A line, and uncomment the A line above it, then run, method loses data but it shouldn't. B) Reverse step A, uncomment B and // end block }. Then run to see results no loss of data C) Comment out B, uncomment C. Run, see synchronizing on (this) loses data, as expected. Don't have time to complete all the variations, hope this helps. If synchronizing on (this), or the method synchronization works, please state what version of Java and OS you tested. Thank you.

import java.util.*;

/** RaceCondition - Shows that when multiple threads compete for resources 
     thread one may grab the resource expecting to update a particular 
     area but is removed from the CPU before finishing.  Thread one still 
     points to that resource.  Then thread two grabs that resource and 
     completes the update.  Then thread one gets to complete the update, 
     which over writes thread two's work.
     DEMO:  1) Run as is - see missing counts from race condition, Run severa times, values change  
            2) Uncomment "synchronized(countLock){ }" - see counts work
            Synchronized creates a lock on that block of code, no other threads can 
            execute code within a block that another thread has a lock.
        3) Comment ArrayList, unComment Vector - See no loss in collection
            Vectors work like ArrayList, but Vectors are "Thread Safe"
         May use this code as long as attribution to the author remains intact.
     /mf
*/ 

public class RaceCondition {
    private ArrayList<Integer> raceList = new ArrayList<Integer>(); // simple add(#)
//  private Vector<Integer> raceList = new Vector<Integer>(); // simple add(#)

    private String countLock="lock";    // Object use for locking the raceCount
    private int raceCount = 0;        // simple add 1 to this counter
    private int MAX = 10000;        // Do this 10,000 times
    private int NUM_THREADS = 100;    // Create 100 threads

    public static void main(String [] args) {
    new RaceCondition();
    }

    public RaceCondition() {
    ArrayList<Thread> arT = new ArrayList<Thread>();

    // Create thread objects, add them to an array list
    for( int i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++){
        Thread rt = new RaceThread( ); // i );
        arT.add( rt );
    }

    // Start all object at once.
    for( Thread rt : arT ){
        rt.start();
    }

    // Wait for all threads to finish before we can print totals created by threads
    for( int i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++){
        try { arT.get(i).join(); }
        catch( InterruptedException ie ) { System.out.println("Interrupted thread "+i); }
    }

    // All threads finished, print the summary information.
    // (Try to print this informaiton without the join loop above)
    System.out.printf("\nRace condition, should have %,d. Really have %,d in array, and count of %,d.\n",
                MAX*NUM_THREADS, raceList.size(), raceCount );
    System.out.printf("Array lost %,d. Count lost %,d\n",
             MAX*NUM_THREADS-raceList.size(), MAX*NUM_THREADS-raceCount );
    }   // end RaceCondition constructor



    class RaceThread extends Thread {
    public void run() {
        for ( int i=0; i<MAX; i++){
        try {
            update( i );        
        }    // These  catches show when one thread steps on another's values
        catch( ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException ai ){ System.out.print("A"); }
        catch( OutOfMemoryError oome ) { System.out.print("O"); }
        }
    }

    // so we don't lose counts, need to synchronize on some object, not primitive
    // Created "countLock" to show how this can work.
    // Comment out the synchronized and ending {, see that we lose counts.

//    public synchronized void update(int i){   // use A
    public void update(int i){                  // remove this when adding A
//      synchronized(countLock){            // or B
//      synchronized(this){             // or C
        raceCount = raceCount + 1;
        raceList.add( i );      // use Vector  
//          }           // end block for B or C
    }   // end update

    }   // end RaceThread inner class


} // end RaceCondition outter class

In general these are mostly the same other than being explicit about the object's monitor that's being used vs the implicit this object. One downside of synchronized methods that I think is sometimes overlooked is that in using the "this" reference to synchronize on you are leaving open the possibility of external objects locking on the same object. That can be a very subtle bug if you run into it. Synchronizing on an internal explicit Object or other existing field can avoid this issue, completely encapsulating the synchronization.