Structured reasoning can improve the inference performance of large language models (LLMs), but it also introduces computational cost and control constraints. When additional reasoning structure helps, and when it instead reduces efficiency or robustness, remains poorly understood. We propose StyleBench, where we study reasoning structure as a capacity-constrained design choice rather than a fixed inference recipe. We evaluate five representative reasoning styles: Chain-of-Thought, Tree-of-Thought, Algorithm-of-Thought, Sketch-of-Thought, and Chain-of-Draft across five reasoning tasks and 15 open-source LLMs ranging from 270M to 120B parameters. We find that greater structural complexity improves accuracy only in limited regimes defined by task demands and model capacity. Search-based styles help on open-ended combinatorial problems but fail on smaller models, while concise styles achieve large efficiency gains on structured tasks without sacrificing performance. We also identify systematic failure modes in smaller models, including premature guessing and weak adherence to reasoning-control instructions. To study adaptive reasoning control, we further compare supervised and reinforcement-based strategy selection on Qwen-7B-Instruct. Supervised fine-tuning collapses to shallow style preferences, whereas GRPO learns stronger adaptive control and improves downstream performance. Together, these results clarify when structured reasoning is useful, when it is wasteful, and why learning to choose a reasoning strategy is itself a challenging inference problem, we open source the benchmark in https://github.com/JamesJunyuGuo/Style_Bench.