Excuse me, you expect the RAWs to be worse than jpgs?
Not worse, but maybe no better. If you take the RAW images from a D4 and a D4s and process them on a computer, you might not see the differential you get with in-camera jpg images. Then again, you might…but you won't know until you do it. If you do see an improvement in the RAW files, that indicates the sensor is actually performing better. If the JPGs are different but the RAWs are not, the sensor is no better, only the in-camera processing has improved. Processing a RAW file on a computer gives you a lot more computing power to reduce noise while preserving detail. The in-camera jpg engine has to perform that conversion fast…and quality is the tradeoff.
Canon is rather notorious for claiming generally lower noise in cases where it really only applies to in-camera JPG, e.g. they state: "DIGIC 5 analyses four times more image information to create each pixel, recording more detail and colour from a scene than ever before. Processing speed is also six times faster compared to the previous processor, efficiently managing the increase in scene information and simultaneously reducing the appearance of image noise by up to 75%.
" However, what they don't tell you is that the improvement disappears when you properly process the respective RAW files.
Of course, they're careful about how they say it, to avoid lying. Reducing the appearance of
image noise isn't the same as actaully reducing the image noise.