You're missing the point. The MFT being better than the 5d2 , lol. This depends on a lot of other things than the sensor, how about the rest of the computing in camera? Do you really think they use the same software and the same computing power in a $300 compact as they do in a flagship pro-body?
I did say the 5D (classic), not the Mark II. Processing power is an example of something that really does follow Moore's law (computer processors have doubled in speed every 2 years for the last 40 years). So yes, you would expect the processors in a consumer level 2011 camera to beat the processors in a 2005 pro level camera.
But I don't believe this should matter a whole lot anyway -- DxOMark looks at the raw files, not jpegs.
Anyway, for better or worse, the overwhelming pattern is that newer small sensor cameras don't beat older big sensor cameras.
The overwhelming trend is that ISO performance is more or less directly proportional to sensor area -- so a full frame camera will be about 2 stops better than a micro 4/3 camera and 1-and-some stops better than APS-C. It takes a long time to close that gap -- even the best APS-C sensors (e.g. the new Nikons and the Sonys) still can't beat the 5D classic in DxOMarks ISO test.
So maybe you know something that I don't, but whenever I hear someone talk about how the new camera is 2 or 3 stops "better" than the old one, an alarm bell goes off (especially when the new camera has yet to be run through objective benchmarks).
You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade,
For the consumer lines, I would buy this. But for the flagship, they hurt the brand (which has implications for the lower end products) if the product fails to impress.