Why would you say that based on that picture? Unless you are into really large print, you will not see much different between 22MP and 36MP. You will see a big difference however in the better ISO performance from a 5DmkIII for the every day use (hopefully anyway).
This is a misconception. Sensor size and technology level are the primary drivers of high ISO performance, not pixel size. I wouldn't bet on a 5D3 having better high ISO just based on pixel size.
I do agree that for normal print sizes you would not notice a difference between 22 and 36 MP. However, for those of us who do like to make large prints, the difference will be there and might be enough to force a switch if Canon does not answer Nikon quickly.
Even if the 5D3 has superior high ISO, how many people will see it "every day"? Most shots are made in the ISO 100-800 range, not 6400 and 12,800. I don't want to sacrifice total resolution for a little less noise at an ISO I'll never use.
Unless I use a flash, if I want to freeze action for my indoor shots (even with my daughter) then I need to shoot at least with ISO 1600 depending on lighting and lenses. Sure I have very fast lens but you also dont always want to shoot at f1.2 so I end up using ISO 1600-6400 quite a bit. I would see and appreciate better ISO performance everyday!