25 months ago
For gaming, music production, and streaming.
Not sure why you're comparing the 8600K to the 1600X. The closest competitor to the 8600K in terms of final implementation costs is going to be the 1700X, which offers some advantages in heavily threaded and/or multi-tasking scenarios like streaming. The 1600X doesn't really have any situation where it has an advantage over the 8600K (not enough to matter anyway), other than being cheaper. If overclocked to ~5GHZ, the 8600K can "keep up" with the 1600X @4GHZ in heavily threaded workloads.
I recommend the 1700X if you want to optimize for high quality software based encoding game-streaming with a 60-120FPS performance goal in games.
I recommend the 8600K if you want to optimize for high refresh rate gaming (120FPS+), and use lower quality GPU fixed function encoding supported by relive or shadowplay for streaming.
For music production, its a wash unless you have plans for a thunderbolt audio interface.
If "forced" to choose between a 1600X and 8600K without concern for the cost difference, I'd take the 8600K.
The 1700X is overpriced in my country, that's why the comparison between the 1600X and the 8600K is the reason for this discussion.
1600x will perform better while streaming but slightly worse in gaming. If you have a monitor with a 100hz or less then definitely go for the 1600x and overclock it.