You have not read my post, Jack0r. I mentioned that an
overclocked 4690K beats a 4770K.
The first benchmark you're listing is a Passmark benchmark, AKA a synthetic benchmark. The fact that the FX-8350 beats an i5 4690K in that benchmark says a lot about how trustworthy a synthetic benchmark such as Passmark is. For example, I once compared my processor (an i5 750) with an FX-8320. The FX-8320 has a Passmark score that is almost 300% as high as mine. However, the real-world performance difference between my processor and that processor isn't even close to that number. In fact, in some cases the FX-8320 performs worse than my current processor.
Also, if you want to make a proper comparison you are to link to the same source. As you can see on the following CPUBoss page the FX-8350 is clearly beaten by the 4690K:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350
That is, except for the Passmark test. However, that is because Passmark by nature is a synthetic benchmark. It does not equate to real-world performance, and is only to be considered as a very, very rough guideline.
The second benchmark does not deliver convincing results to make up for the extra price of the 4770K. Sure, it beats the 4690K, but the difference is not convincing at all. The x264 graph makes it seem like there's a huge difference there, but in actuality the difference still does not make up the extra costs of the processor. In the second test (I don't know what that exactly is) the difference between the 4690K and the 4770K is so small that in real-world applications it is absolutely negligible.
Cinebench can be considered a real-world benchmark, since Cinema 4D is a real application. As such it is more trustworthy than a Passmark score. However, whether that real-world benchmark really applies to others depends on a per-case basis. It is, however, more interesting to take into consideration. In that respect, when you compare the 4690K and the 4770K the difference is still small. We're talking about roughly an 11% difference. In my opinion that does not make up for the +34% difference in price (based on Amazon search results), nor does it serve as a very strong argument for hyperthreading being as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
When comparing CPUs you also need to take into consideration the context. For example, my processor gets a Cinebench score of 14142. In other words, the 4690K completely butchers my CPU with its score of 27090. Then take into consideration what I'm doing and what I want to be doing. I can already stream just fine at the format that I want (720p@30FPS), which means that any extra power I can get is going to be primarily put into extra compression (AKA slower CPU benchmarks) and streaming at higher framerates. Let alone if I were to make a dedicated streaming build with that. Those are all things you need to take into consideration, which is why you need to look at it on a per-case basis.
So, sure. If you are in the industry and want to produce a top-of-the-line stream and have so much gear and software that an i7 is a relatively small purchase, go ahead. Otherwise, keep looking.
Most people on this forum consider the i7 a holy grail and you know it (or at least, you should, being a moderator). On every single thread about hardware recommendations there will be people boasting about their i7 setups and recommending said i7 (usually the 4770K), talking down on the i5s and any other processor in a manner as if those are bloody Celerons or something. People just recommend the i7 4770K by default. Not because they really want to make a dedicated streaming build that's adjusted to OP's needs.
...
Intel i5-2550K no OC, can do 720p30 on fast/faster, but 1080p30 is smooth only on superfast
Intel i7-4770, can do 2 720p30 streams at veryfast, run quicksync at 1080p60fps and play bf4 at steady 100 fps.
Quite a jump there, huh? I mean, sure, the i7 4770K is a pretty damn good processor. Nobody is questioning that. But there's a huge gap between those two last processors you tried. That's a huge amount of very capable processors you don't have experience with.
I'm not questioning if the i7 4770K is a powerful processor. I am, however, arguing that it is not the only option out there, and far from the best choice when we're talking about the price/performance ratio. Just because on a lineair performance scale the 4770K apears after the 4690K doesn't necessarily mean it's actually a better investment.
