Actually, I believe the higher compression ratio makes the engine feel less peaky when it is not on boost. Back years ago, turbo engines ran 7:1 to 8:1 compression because the knock management systems were not as effective. Those engines made very little power until the boost came on, and then that sudden increase in power was very difficult for the driver to modulate. Think back to vehicles like the Porsche 930 Turbo and its renowned on/off switch throttle. My experience with early turbos was with a 1989 Ford Probe, which used Mazda's 2.2 liter turbo also used in the MX-6. Trying to put the power down out of a corner was so tough because you had to get on the throttle early and then anticipate when the boost would build, because the sudden surge of power would overwhelm the tires if you were cornering anywhere near the limit.
Higher compression ratios are useful for engines that aren't designed to make a lot of power. Because the static compression ratio is pretty high, it doesn't take much boost to get BMEPs high enough to generate significant torque. And also because you don't or can't use a high volume of boost, turbos can be smaller and spin up faster, without also running out of capacity for airflow. I think it's a pretty good compromise for a vehicle not dedicated to sports-car type operation.
I think that 2.2 liter Mazda motor I had used a 7.8:1 compression ratio. I do remember running it for a day without the turbo as I was exchanging it out for a slightly larger unit. Back then, under about 8 PSI of boost stock, it made 145 HP. I bet that without the turbo, that 2.2 liter made about 80 HP. The car would barely move.