As Herve mentioned, changing the normalised value just moves all the normalised values up or down. The relative difference between them is still the same. The great thing about normalised/"Print" values is that they allow the comparison of different sensor MP values and formats when outputted to the same MP size, here 8MP.
For example compare the Pentax K-5, Canon 5DII & Pentax 645D cameras at the SNR 18% for both "Screen" (pixel level) & "Print" (normalised):http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/676|0/%28brand%29/Pentax/%28appareil2%29/668|0/%28brand2%29/Pentax/%28appareil3%29/483|0/%28brand3%29/Canon
While at the pixel level, they are close together, the normalised figures show the advantage of bigger sensor size.
Without the whiff of sanity that the normalisation brings to the discussion, we would have more people complaining that more MP, for the same sensor size, is always worse.
Another way of comparison is relative performance per unit area. This is what I effectively did in this message here (figures in stops with the Canon S90 used as the reference):http://forum.dxomark.com/index.php/topic,412.msg641.html#msg641
This gives some idea of relative sensor performance and how much it could improve if it was as efficient as a top P&S sensor.