IMO, there are two manufactures who have public information that does a good job of framing the answer to the question - Cervelo for frames
http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/enginee...presentations/ and HED for wheels
http://www.hedcycling.com/aerodynamics.asp .
On the Cervelo link click on the aerodynamics. They discuss their aero and climbing bikes and discuss the tradeoff. I own a Cervelo R3. For my terrain and power, a lighter bike is better than a more aero bike. What is interesting is the break point where lighter bicycles are better than heavier more aero bicycles. For professional and elite cat 1,2 cyclists it is an 8% grade. For 250 watt cyclists, it is a 5% grade. Since most riders here are under 200 watts, the climbing advantage will be greater on shallower grades.
Therefore, a lighter and more aero bicycle will provide the weakest riders with the most advantage on a percentage basis. The same is true for wheels. Which is why I think recreational cyclists feel more impact from better equipment.
IMO, I have the most efficient bicycle for my terrain and riding style and I put on different wheels depending on the conditions to further optimize the results.