AMD FX 6300  vs Athlon X4 860K 

6300. Absolutely, especially for streaming. When you stream you always want to go more cores and plus the 6300 has a better clock speed.

A bunch of BS. I own both processors with the same configurations, I swear the 860k is way slower. I would recommend getting the 6300.

Athlon I'm using it for my pc

its not an apu, its just not a fucking apu. an fm2/fm2+ socket doesn't make it an apu.

yes,true... Im not only who see how much is strong "cheap" quad core 860K... ;)

Definitely go with the athlon 860k

What would be better for streaming athlon or 6300 but if i get 6300 ill have to get a 750ti but if i get the athlon ill get a 770 or 960

Wonder when will they get a chip that's better than the 860k, without losing out on the single threading performance while having a better overall performance? The FX series uses the AM3+ chipset which may become obsolete in the future, and the Athlon X4 860k is very much overclockable. What makes this chip more appealing than the bulkier chips, is that it's capable of playing lots of games provided you take the savings from the chip and put it onto better GPU, RAM, and Power Supply. For some reason people tend to overlook the quality of the motherboard in order to get more savings out of it.

I see the value of an APU, don't get my wrong. In fact I recommended my mom get an A10-7850k for her new computer because she plays games and shit, I'm building a media server and don't need the graphics performance, especially at the cost of CPU performance, so I'll be getting the Athlon x4 860k, and I've got an old 6770 lying around that'll be plenty fast for the occasional rendering, or video encoding I may need.

Yep, Actual mileage can vary a lot depending on use. Saw a really good example of that a couple years ago. An older slower CPU was running a program faster than a much newer and very much faster CPU. The reason was L2 cache. It was large enough in the ancient CPU to have most of the program and it's data in L2 cache while the newer faster CPU had access main memory. And cost is a factor for most of us. For those wanting a basic internet and email computer the APU based systems can be very hard to beat. But an APU is not going to be as fast as a similar generation CPU with a Video Card and need not cost a lot more. All those reasons and optimized benchmarks makes it hard to compare without trying them yourself but gives endless fodder for opinion and discussion.

I noticed the score is slightly higher, but I have trouble believing an APU will be better than AMDs high end cpu, outside of arbitrary "benchmarks" that the cpus are probably optimized for to begin with

The FX 6300 would be better because it has more cores. That is how it gets a CPU Passmark rating of 6353 compared to the 860K Passmark of 5636 (higher is better). Intel would be better but only if price is not taken into account, which would be the case if you were concerned about saving time, or being productive, while editing video. But the CPU is only one part of the system and in the case of the 860K, and Intel, the GPU and video card used will make a major difference in which system is ultimately better.

What the heck are you saying? Lol!

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

what's better for gaming and editing video ?

Me too, it is without overclocking quiet a big bottleneck to a 280X, but with it is fine.

I have had my FX-6300 for since August 13', and can say from personal experience that this chip has solid performance for gaming, photo shop and video streaming. This FX has never given me any issues

How about updating the FX-6300 amazon store page? The price is over $100 since you included the "retail" version. Here's cheaper FX-6300's: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=fx%206300&sprefix=fx+630%2Celectronics