Get off the RX1's back

I used a Nikon D600 for a few weeks while I had the RX1. They are very similar (obviously) with regard to higher ISO, so there's that. But the image posted above is so clear to me that I am not sure why Ariston is debating this. Look at the wheat on the left: noisy (like I get with my 5N on eyelashes at higher ISOs). Look at the RX1's wheat on the right: crystal clear and sharp.

I am most often disappointed with higher ISOs with regard to eyelashes when shooting from a few meters or so. People applaud the NEX 5N for high ISOs, but the RX1 was a very significant step up. The RX1 and D600 have the same sensor and they're 2 of the highest 3 or 4 cameras ever tested by DxO Mark, for example. DxO Mark hasn't tested the XP1, yet, but the X100 was tested and they note this about the RX1:

Placed 1st overall for high-end compacts the RX1 is streets ahead of the competition here. With 93 points the RX1 scores 20 points more than the 2nd place Fujifilm X100 with 73. I am not saying the XP1 is bad, either. I just don't think it's fair to suggest that it's equal to the RX1.

Do you really think the XP1 is going to make up that gap with it's smaller sensor? I'd be surprised if the XP1 even scores above 80 (NEX 5N at 77, so perhaps 81 tops for the XP1). But the proof is visible in the image above. I'll check out the dpreview images, but I also think Fujifilm overstates their ISOs and applies NR even to RAW, so there's that. The image above is pretty convincing, though. And I am not loyal to Sony or any brand; I just want the best ISO performance as I shoot most often in lower light. I'd like an A99 because I like the articulating LCD quite a bit, but the translucent mirror causes a bit of light loss and that's unfortunate. The X100S might be my next camera depending on high ISO and AF performance. We'll see.