The big advantage to boost... since power can be produced at far lower RPM* than NA, you don't need $4,000 rocker arms, fabricated intake manifolds, stepped-tuned headers,1,000 lb. use-it-50-times-and-throw-it-away valve springs, $$$ connecting rods, and billet cranks.
How to tell which common engines work well with boost (produce X power from Y inches @ Z boost)? Everything produces more power with boost, but is there a reliable predictor for "if it does this at ATM it will do that @ 40 psi"? No. Port flow CFM and valve area per cubic inch, rod ratio are all factors but none are linear.
What to do? Use what everyone else uses (LS, BBC, Gen-2 hemi), or you're stepping way out on thin ice. Some untested engines may surprise you (how about the 289 Studebaker?), but others will produce hundreds of HP less than those mentioned at the same boost level.
* 8,000 RPM is not 33% more inertial load than 6,000 (8K ÷ 6K = 1.333), but 78% (8K^2 ÷ 6K^2 = 1.778).
I beat the crap out of my TT440 trying to learn how to tune it. I broke some rings and ate a couple head gaskets along the way but never hurt the stock block, crank, or rods. It saw 6,000 RPM regularly but that was about it. It survived a boost spike to 22 psi when I lost a wastegate line.
