On micro-stutter:
Micro-stutter exists in both single GPU and multi-GPU setups, and its generally worse in the latter. People differ in the level of micro-stutter they can discern. Stating it as a general disadvantage for multi-GPU is not really fair, else I could say that anything above 60FPS (or even 30FPS) is wasted as a lot of people couldn't discern it. People like BFG10K, who seem to be sensitive to micro-stutter, are free to shun multi-GPU and any other setups/cards they feel are not to their liking. Even people that make their buying decisions based on color should be free to do so, after all its their money. Guys should just let the ms issue rest: does it exist? yes; will everybody notice it? no; will I notice it? only way to know for sure is if you try it. Anything else IMO is a wasted effort.
On minimum FPS:
A single stated value of minimum fps doesn't tell you enough to make an informed decision. A better resource would be the distribution of the FPS. For all you know the dips might occur once in the game or, at the other end, every other frame (like in micro-stutter). I think an average FPS + variance, though not ideal, is better than the average-min-max set.
To more relevant stuff:
One of the downsides to die shrinking is the reduced surface area for heat dissipation, and I feel this is what may limit the achievable clocks.
It definitely would be interesting to see how it goes for Nvidia, it being their first 55nm, though I was expecting them to jump to 45nm. As AMD has found out in the CPU biz, being a node behind your competition could increase the hurt.
All in all, its a good time for the consumer. Now for Intel to join the fray!