No I don't. They're processed, not straight from the camera.
Of course they're processed. What isn't? You can't even see
a RAW file until it's processed, whether it comes straight from the camera or not. Nor can you see a TIFF or JPEG until the information contained in such file formats has been processed in such a way that a group of phosphorescent dots on your monitor gives the impression of a picture.
By putting that information in the TIFF file through further processing, the luminescent dots on your monitor can be transformed into fine dots of ink on paper.
There's also a type of processing that takes place prior
to the RAW image being written to the camera's memory card. It's the quality of the results from that
processing, which is largely due to a camera's design and sophistication of componentry, that DXO are testing.
It's standard scientific procedure when testing for a specific quality to exclude all variables that may affect the accuracy of the results, if possible, or at least keep such variables constant.
The amount of processing that takes place between the stage when a RAW file is written to memory, and the stage when such information contained within that RAW file is transformed into dots of ink on paper, is huge and varied. It involves not only the sophistication of RAW converters, interpolation and sharpening algorithms, noise reduction software, monitors and calibration devices, editing programs such as photoshop, but also another major piece of hardware called a printer, with its additional variables of ink, paper and profile qualities.
Add to that the even more variable factors, such as human skill and subjective taste which can also be involved at each stage of such processing to some degree, then it makes complete sense for DXOmark to directly test the quality of the RAW file. With such results in hand, one is then in a better position to compare other factors in the post-RAW processing chain, such as RAW converters, for example.