From a strictly materials engineering standpoint, I suspect that the camblock version is the "better" of the two, as I think that it does an efficient job of absorbing recoil force, as opposed to merely directing it into the frame (and, by extension, into the user's hand).
From a user's standpoint, I think that it's pretty much irrelevant as to which is "better"-both do the job of very effectively managing recoil force to effect the operational cycle, and the P94/P944 is hardly under-engineered. Given the weight and engineering of the P944 with the swinging link, I personally never felt adversely affected by the recoil forces inherent to the .40 cartridge with it.
I suspect that Ruger's shifting from the swinging link to the camblock system in the P944 (I don't believe that any 9mm P94s were ever produced with the camblock before the 9mm P94 was phased out of production)had more to do with organizational. logistical, and manufacturing efficiencies and product/manufacturing simplification.
I had a P944 for years with the swinging link, and was satisfied with the system, and felt no compelling need to switch to a camblock P944. However, given a choice between the two systems, I would slightly lean towards the camblock system, as I suspect that it does increase the long term longevity of the P944 frame, given the sharp, quick pressure peak inherent to the .40 cartridge (and, at least theoretically, may provide for greater "tunability" via recoil spring selection in conjunction with cartridge loading selection).
For 9mm users, there's a solution if you prefer the camblock system-it's called the P95.