Secondly, strange that you don't actually link anything to demonstrate this noise advantage. Much less that it's "vastly superior" and "not even in the same ballpark". Hint -- because it isn't.

[1] - which is a revealing bit of cargo cult analysis. Sensor quality across "dedicated" cameras have enormous variations, and a lot are simply terrible. One of the reasons smartphones do burst and computational photography is for extended dynamic range, yet the iPhone 11 already has a sensor with more dynamic range than the significant majority of SLRs/mirrorless cameras. There are obviously better sensors, like the A7R II+, but there are many that are worse, sometimes much worse.

Then you link to a dynamic range chart. Yet we were talking about noise. See, I looked at their noise charts where the XS Max (a generation behind, and significantly bested by the 11) beat the majority of SLRs, including contemporary SLRs. Tellingly you decided not to link that.

"Compare an iPhone XS Max to a an A7R4 or something"

Oh you know...an A7R4 or something. The fact that the A7R4 has one of the best sensors on an SLR is just, you know, incidental.

Fun fact - the iPhone 11 has 10 stops (10 "bits") of dynamic range, which exceeds the majority of SLRs on that site (and of those that beat it, few are "vastly superior"). The sensor actually has 12 stops of dynamic range but automatic pre-processing knocks it down 2 stops (though there are tools that circumvent that). "Hahahahaha".

"RAWs from a large sensor without denoising look fine."

You have never seen the actual RAW data, plainly evident from this claim. Do you know what a Bayer filter is? Do you realize the enormous amount of processing it does just to recreate edges and other artifacts? I suspect you don't. Do you know that every sensor has permanently lit elements, permanently dark elements, and permanently errant elements? That the camera has an evolving correction matrix around these artefacts? The amount of processing that turns that bayer sensor array into a so-called "RAW" file is absolutely enormous, and it automatically includes a tremendous amount of smoothing and corrections, even if you, the ignorant user, remain blissfully unaware. When manufacturers push out new firmware, changes to these processing steps is often one of the most noted changes.

So to repeat-

-the iPhone 11 has better dynamic range, single shot, than many SLRs.

-the iPhone 11 has a better noise profile than many SLRs.

And I'm just talking about the iPhone 11 as a very common smartphone. There are smartphones that exceed it now, the point being that many smartphones have superb cameras.

These are facts. There are SLRs that are much better, like the recent A7s, but any cargo culting as if the entire category gives you a superior result is simple ignorance.

In a post where I'm talking about necessary processing (where you claim there is none) to turn the ugly sensor data into workable forms you attempt to correct me to tell me that it needs to be processed (I mean, you are aware of libraw so clearly you're an expert. funfact: I worked for two years on a professional codebase that specifically dealt with raw sensor processing), as if to demonstrate my ignorance. Remarkable absence of self-awareness on your part.

Your reply could really be posted as a counterpoint to your own first post where you decided to counter my basic statement that all CMOS sensors have noise and abberations.

"and if you understood the physics of how a CMOS sensor works"

Just to be clear, your authoritative site shows the iPhone (the last generation) being less noisy than many SLRs. And it's fact that the iPhone 11 has 10 stops of dynamic range, before any special bracketing, which bests many/most SLRs on that site. And yet we're still going. Amazing

But your core "if you only understood CMOS...reeeeeeeee!" claim is one that is often erroneously made. "larger sensor = larger sensor pit pitch = better, less noisy sensor!" Right?

I mean, this argument has been made against smartphones for years. To assure us that they'll always be crap because...like...physics or something. Though anyone who didn't decide to die on a really stupid hill has long moved on.

But here's the reality-

a) There are enormous difference between different CMOS technologies and implementations. Sony, for instance, has shot ahead of everyone else (though they bin and segment). There are many SLRs and mirrorless cameras with absolute trash sensors. Cargo culting is ignorant.

b) Many cameras with larger sensors spend the benefit on higher resolutions. The Sony A7R IV subdivides the sensor into 5x more pixels than the iPhone 11 (the A7R IV being one of the absolute best). If that was lossless you could simply process it to a lower resolution and have the best of both worlds, but it isn't lossless -- the circuitry and structure to support that resolution is substantial. Each pit has its own lines and power and memory channel. And even if they didn't, noise scales with the sensor size.

"Give me a specific SLR in the last 4 years where either of these is true."

You've already segued effortlessly from noise to dynamic range, humorously, and now you're making a baseless, nonsensical statement just hoping that no one actually confirms it. Your intellectual sincerity in this discussion is somewhere approaching non-existent, so I'm out. Cheers.