I'll try to keep my answer as practical (non-techy) as I can...
CCD vs. CMOS
In real-world terms, differences you see between CMOS and CCD sensors will be influenced much more by other factors (primarily default color choices made by the software for your camera) than by the fact that the sensor is CMOS or CCD.
There will be differences between these two technologies, to be sure, but you are unlikely to be able to look at a photograph and tell, visually.
14 vs 16-bit
This is the part of the chip (CMOS or CCD) which takes the analog voltage from the sensels and turns it into a digital signal. The sensel collects light much like a bucket left outside collects rainwater. If you pick it up after the rain storm, the bucket's weight will be more, the more water it collected. Similarly, after the exposure, the sensel will deliver more voltage the more light it collected.
The sensel will have a minimum (no light) and a maximum (full saturation) voltage it can put out. This voltage will be converted into a digital signal, with the range being represented by either 14 bits (Nikon) or 16 bits (CFV).
In English, that means the entire range of possibilities the sensel can record (from minimum to maximum) will be broken into 16384 different possible steps (Nikon) or 65536 possible steps (CFV).
Note that this does not mean that 16-bit sensor automatically has more dynamic range (as is often touted in forums), it means that the 16-bit sensor has four times the fidelity (or precision) of the 14-bit sensor. You can think of it this way: Dynamic range is a function of how much rainwater the bucket can hold, not about how sensitive the scale is at measuring the bucket.
Ok, so 16 thousand tonal values or 65 thousand tonal values--either sounds like a lot. I suspect you are wondering if the difference is visible in real-world photographs?
The answer is yes, under certain circumstances. You will tend to see smoother shadow transitions, without as much 'banding', particularly if you accidentally under-exposed the image and are fixing it in post.
Nikon D3X vs. CFV
And your final question--these are difficult to compare unless you bring their respective optics into play. And once you've done that, for the most part, the Nikon will not stack up well against the CFV because of the generally superior optics on the Hasselblad (note that the Nikon telephoto offerings are comparable). This is probably the biggest single factor influencing the 'look' of pictures from a given camera.
Second, sensel pitch (physical size) of 5.94 for the Nikon vs. 6.8 for the Hasselblad CFV-39 and 9 (!) for the CFV-16 makes demands of the lenses that put it at another disadvantage. (Smaller is a disadvantage.) Still, Nikon has done admirably here, offering exceptional dynamic range -- particularly for a small format camera -- that arguably rivals medium format (at least according to some measurements).
In addition to image quality, the price, convenience, weight, battery life, size, ergonomics and other features will play a big role, and being, subjective will factor more or less depending on the individual photographer's situation.
In the end, both systems will take some fantastic photographs with the right glass in front of it, so it's a matter of which tool best meets your needs.
-Brad
P.S. Just for the sake of completeness: Throughout this I've implied that sensors turn light directly into voltage. This isn't technically true--they turn light into charge, and that charge is turned into voltage. This detail wasn't relevant to the points I was making so I skipped over it.
