Kodak says the VC lines are somewhat sharper than the NC lines. Possibly due to the somewhat higher contrast. In real-world use I can't see any difference in sharpness. But I limit my enlargements to less than 12x.
As noted above, Kodak says VC is a bit sharper. But your choice should depend on your subject matter and the prints you want, not on minor differences in sharpness (and they are minor). For western landscapes, I usually (not always) prefer VC. For many eastern scenes and for people, NC would probably be better.
I heard that VC brings out reds more than NC, but I can't back that up. With that in mind, I think the difference will be most prominent in studio work, where NC will be better for caucasians, whereas VC will make blacks really pop a bit more due to their higher pigmentation
If you look up Ektar on their site they have a set of graphs where they place them all.
It says VC is sharper, supposedly the 400 is sharper than the 160nc too
Having used all of the speeds and types including 800 I didn't see much difference.
I shot most of the 800 at f1.4-1.7 but the few that were at a smaller aperture seemed roughly the same. Maybe a bit less than some of the better VC shots I took.