Streaming computer on BUDGET dilema!? HELP!

May I ask why? For streaming, an 8350 will demolish a 4460.

You dont need to overclock an 8350 for it to smash a 4460 in multithreaded applications mate. But overall your idea is correct. The energy bill myth is ludicrous though. Talking ~2-3 euros a month tops if you run it 24/7.

The xeon is the route you should go if you dont want to tinker.

Whats an 8350 cost over there anyway?

The fx 8350 is 167€ btw, the I5 4590 180€. A b85m-d3h is 50€, decent 970am3+ boards that support the fx start at 70€.

Um. You're wrong, but ok. I5 outperforms in gaming.

When you stream, you are setting up more than just the game. You have a recording program open. You have a browser window open. You have a data logger open. He's also hosting a server.

For this application, an 8350 will outperform a 4460. Do some research on multi threaded applications and cpu power management. If he's running a 4 threaded game, streaming, and hosting a server, you think that 4 threaded 4460 will perform as well as an 8350? Where you getting your i5's, because I want whatever you're smok... buying.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Right. Wrong.
Streaming is the action of submitting data from one point to another, usually over the network.
You don't need to have a recording program open, neither a game anyway. Especially not a browser window. And no, you're not hosting a server. Have you even ever learnt about networking in any programming language?

Also, your described scenario is not multithreaded, or at least not what you mean with the fx's superior performance. You have about 50 ongoing processes (~1000 threads are quite likely) while "just idling", another 50-100 for any usual game you might launch, yet the I5 beats the fx lineup. What you mean are distributed, concurrent workloads that scale well with additional cpu cores (/threads), such as exporting video footage (application dependent but usually the case). Having a game open with a browser window and an I/O handle busy for the data submission is a completely other scenario. If you're also recording your whole screen with only the cpu (that no person with right mind does anymore given a gpu is available to do that in better quality, smaller filesize and less performance loss) and have a game open while that, it might take a little performance hit. That is, if one or more cores of the cpu are temporarily (or throughout) working all the time (100% cpu load). But then, the game would need to be very cpu heavy (to an extend the fx would produce absolutely horrible framerates, unless the game is perfectly thread efficient, which isn't the case of any single game right now) for the I5 to show a serious performance penalty.

As for monthly cpu cost, in germany we have ~$0.4/kwh, so running your pc for 4 hours working straight (full load) a day will show about 4-8€ extra cost per month on the fx side.

Well, considering you simply described RECORDING VIDEO (not streaming), you're massively incorrect. Please tell me how you are streaming without a browser or other process open. I'd love to know, because it simply sounds like you're running FRAPS and calling that "streaming". Most streamers run an HUD as well as browsers. Strongly sounds like you think browsing windows don't use much processing power (go open up chrome and play some youtube videos and watch what happens to your cpu and memory usage).

Also, background services and idle tasks use a very very small percentage of cpu power. Like, less than 1% of a single modern core. Completely irrelevant to the point.

Streaming a modern AAA title (gta 5 for example) will definitely be superior on a 8350 than a 4460. Games are beginning to become multi threaded. The age old single and dual threaded game engines are, for the most part, gone on mainstream titles. If you are running a 4 threaded game (GTA 5 will take whatever you can throw at it), and then add in more background processes, the i5 begins to show its weakness. This is where the i7/xeon's take over.

The xeon would be superior to both an i5 and an AMD FX. If this was simply for gaming, I'd tell him to get the i5 and be done with it, but thats not the case.

Well then show me a single reputable review that comes close to backing up your point, I'd be glad to check that out.
Except, I won't, because no benchmark will show that.

How to stream without a browser open? I'm not even sure what a browser does even have to do with streaming, have you ever heard of OBS, shadowplay, raptr or alike? You said streaming puts more load on the cpu than "just recording", which is absolutely false. Everything that streaming actually does it transferring data, no more, no less.

And please tell me how browser windows use up any cpu time, because even with a hundret tabs open simultaneously, that doesn't do anything to cpu usage. Which makes total sense because browsers don't request much cpu time while actually doing something - which is like once you open a new website. After that point, it just idles unless to be refreshed my a request in the webside code or just goes completely inactive with the tab not being active.

But hey, lets look at the case that recording (combined with encoding as you don't want gigabytes of filesize by uncompressed videofiles) does put load on the cpu (which, once again, it doesn't with h.264 encoding / intel quick sync existing). For the case that the fx would show the same results as the i5, the game must require so little single core performance, that the i5 would run at barely 50-60% load, because that's right a 100% load on a fx core. In that case, so that recording does reduce framerates and gets one or more cores to their maximum, recording would have to eat up 40-50% cpu time. Not like that happens anyway (unless you're recording like 8k footage and heavily compressing it on the fly and for some reason refuse to use any acceleration), but even in the case, the fx would just screw up as much. You'd get slightly reduced framerates with the i5 - as you'd get with the fx. But then once again, that case will never ever happen. There's just no circumstance it potentially could, even if its a game where fx and i5 perform as well as AND you're recording like 8k footage, compressing it heavily and refusing to use any hardware acceleration that will completely blow cpu recording out of the water.
And the case actually is, that the fx DOES bottleneck like 80%+ of the new game titles, while an i5 usually sits around rather low total amout of load. In the case of recording there, the i5 might get a very small decrease in framerates, but the fx will potentially get the whole thing unplayable.