Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.
The real or relative benefits for crop are:
* more spread AF points, for some reason they cannot be expanded in FF
* cheaper to make (take a note however, the 1D-series is no way cheaper to buy though, it is just more margin for Canon. Reality check - look at the 5D MK2 FF price or check Nikon FF equivalents)
* due to data throughput constraint a smaller sensor allows more density, ie. magnification. This has, however, limited potential as technology improves.
I'm a tad baffled as to why people see the APS-H format as dead - others have said elsewhere that the 1.3x crop offers better picture quality than APS-C, but much faster framerates and much higher ISO performance than full frame sister products.
Using the car analogy, the family car is the APS-C, the luxury performance saloon is the full frame, but hang on, I want the performance, but don't need the four seats of the big car - I'll buy the sports car instead ! Want a hatchback car, buy a micro 4/3rds, want a cheap Korean runaround ? Buy a compact zoom camera.