to stroke or not to stroke?

This is an apples to oranges comparison. This reminds of the guys that want to build a 318 'just to be different'. Why? Any engine can be built to "run a number" regardless of it's architecture.

Obviously, the main benefit of a stroker is the increased torque provided by the extra cubes and torque rules on the street. This requires less torque multiplication in the drive line which equates to less horsepower lost trying to get the car to move. You can build a stroker to RPM also, just need the heads to support it.

Think about it - a stock 340 has little in the way of torque off the line and usually needs a steep rear gear to get it moving. I know that first hand, the 340 in my Duster couldn't get out of it's own way until I had my foot to the floor. I changed from a 4.30 rear gear to a 4.10 for 'highway driving' and it lost .2-.3 1/10ths in the 1/4 mile. Stock stroke needs RPM where a stroker generally performs better at a lower point. I was shifting my car at 7,200, not many strokers are getting wound up that high. If you race a lot, RPM wears parts faster and requires more diligent maintenance so a high strung small block may end up costing more in the end depending on intended use.

It's kind of a no-brainer to build a stroker for a street car, it costs basically the same all else being equal. A race car is debatable, just depends on what you want the car to do. 8,000 rpm small blocks are cool but can be tough to live with on the street.

Again, any engine can be built to do XY or Z, it just needs the right parts. The stroker just makes it easier.