That comparison at reddotforum.com is exactly the one where the M monochrome is expected to have a clear advantage: same relatively noisy Kodak CCD sensor, just with or without Bayer CFA. I expect that Red Dot Forum will do a similar comparison with the new M, which will be interesting.
Apart form the very visible (and expected) advantage to the monochrome M of about one stop or a bit more in noise levels, what do people see in this comparison? I note that Kodak CCD's like in the M9 are several stops worse for noise levels than recent Canon and Sony CMOS sensors, so if the CMOSIS sensor of the new M is comparable to those CMOS sensors, it will reverse the advantage in noise (and any advantage in fineness of tonal gradations) to a clear advantage for the new M. On paper, the CMOSIS sensor also has a higher DR per pixel (along with 1/3rd more pixels, which enhances "visible DR"), but it is risky extrapolating from those specs to real world visible differences.
On resolution though, my prediction is that the M monochrome will beat the new M, because one third more pixels (24 vs 18) is probably not enough to overcome the resolution disadvantage caused by the CFA. However, there is nothing close to a "four times the pixels advantage" to removing the CFA, as has been explained many times in this forum and elsewhere. That 4x would be true if the camera with Bayer CFA simply down-sampled each cluster of four pixels
to form a single grayscale pixel, but instead there are far better methods for doing monochrome conversion.