Like Red, I agree it is better but do not believe I will continue to use it.
Better is relevant. Is it better to the point that it makes a notable difference? I have never noticed a difference in any oil change ever except for the young days long ago when I tried 20w50 and in cold weather it would take way too long to flow.
I do not believe the oil is better enough to save an engine, or component, had it been using synthetic instead of conventional.
The space shuttle is "better":
faster, more sophisticated, more expensive, more powerful... than any other vehicle in all of history, but it does not mean it will get one to the next city better then walking or driving.
Or maybe a better analogy is the gold that is plated on RCA jacks on A/V equipment. Platinum is a "finer" metal but does anybody believe that plating RCA jacks with platinum will make any difference over any other metal?
Just because one can afford the oil does not make it a better oil of even make for a good argument for its use.
There seems to be some flap about Mobile 1 changing their formula, presumably to a cheaper oil, and flap about what actually make the grade to be labeled as "synthetic". It seems that Castrol is using conventional oil that has been "tinkered with" (tech term used in the petro chemical industry

) and calling it synthetic oil. Google the terms and one will find lots of talk about it.
Went 1/4 million h-a-r-d miles on my GN using what ever brand name conventional the parts store had on sale and I went 5k between changes - NO Oil Related Failure, original turbo. The only oil problem were leaks typical for any car that old and hard used. A bit of blue smoke on throttle after extended coast down. Car otherwise ran very good but with the company car I just got, it was time to take it off the road for some crank it up mods.
I bet any and all oil except heavy stuff in cold weather is fine but I will use a brand name like Valvoline 10w30 - more oil, less modifiers.