The point seem to be that you have provided no evidence that it's even a fact that they are faster on _your_ system. Not even the basic parameters of a scenario where this statement is true. Since this seems unlikely on any system I'm willing to bet that you're wrong, either because you're lying or because you're using flawed metrics. Now, you might not be bothered by the fact that I, and others, will openly say that we think you're wrong, even on your own system. In that case, power to you, please go on. We will. If you are bothered, provide us with the facts (scenario with relevant parameters, tests, and the numbers achieved) and we'll believe you and might even try to recreate your results (the definition of science) and come up with a decent explanation. Or, if somebody questions your honesty about the above numbers, that somebody might not not necessarily believe you, but now at least you've done what you can on your part.

For now, I, and dare I say we, believe that you just haven't tested sufficiently well. That you're wrong. Your unwillingness to share data about your alleged result is so universally typical of fraudulent and badly supported research that I really can come to no other conclusion than that you've got nothing substantial to provide and that you know it your statements aren't likely to survive a real test. Even on your own machine.