He may have had better processing power and memory, but that wasn't the determining factor. It just so happened that his interests happened to be what they are, and he directed his intellectual creativity towards them. Using creativity to create knowledge isn't just about explicit knowledge, which is what we know him for, but also creating inexplicit knowledge, such as improving his creative output. A really good example is Ramanujan. Well known as one of the most "innately brilliant mathematicians to exist. And yes, his processing power and memory was surely high, but it was much more about the inexplicit knowledge he created about HOW to do math. He was able to do math in ways almost of all us cannot do, but not because we inherently cannot, but because we don't have the requisite knowledge to know how.

Most importantly, none of us are born with this knowledge, we create it, and all of us have the universal ability to create knowledge. We are born with some innate knowledge, such as the knowledge of how to learn language and things of that nature. But we can overcome our birthright regardless of which way it goes. For example, we are not born with the innate knowledge to understand quantum physics, yet we are able to learn; but we are born with the innate knowledge that very high places are dangerous, yet we can learn to overcome that fear and even go so far as to jump out of airplanes for fun with the learned knowledge that a parachute will save us. Regardless of what knowledge we are born with or without, we are universal, and can create and acquire whatever knowledge we want or need. Which again, is not to say that we will, but merely that we are able to.