While there are a lot of lists that proclaim what's better about git -- at some level you're right: you can do the same things in subversion than you can do in git. (Even though svnmerge doesn't really do nearly the same things as git merge.)
That being said, I've witnessed the main gains of git after using it for a while. It is no longer a chore to branch and merge, it's instantaneous. It takes no time to commit. There is no penalty to committing -- my commits don't make it to everyone else until I'm ready to send my commits. This means that in a git environment I find myself committing, branching and merging more often.
Over time, you find that the increased number of commits and branches helps you to collaborate with others in ways that you just weren't used to thinking about in subversion.
If you are always working on things very linearly and are never context switching (and your peers aren't context switching), then you will notice no change with git. However, I have never worked at a place where this is the case.
That being said, I've witnessed the main gains of git after using it for a while. It is no longer a chore to branch and merge, it's instantaneous. It takes no time to commit. There is no penalty to committing -- my commits don't make it to everyone else until I'm ready to send my commits. This means that in a git environment I find myself committing, branching and merging more often.
Over time, you find that the increased number of commits and branches helps you to collaborate with others in ways that you just weren't used to thinking about in subversion.
If you are always working on things very linearly and are never context switching (and your peers aren't context switching), then you will notice no change with git. However, I have never worked at a place where this is the case.