I don't have a PS 5, but...

Graphics improvements have gotten more subtle than in the past. If you double the amount of polygons on a model and make the textures a bit sharper with each generation, you're going to hit diminishing returns pretty quickly. Now, the biggest quality difference will be higher resolutions and better lighting, really.

The performance difference is substantial. If you don't care about 30fps vs 60, well, that's chewing up some of the performance jump too. If you do care, it's a revelation, though.

Look at the Switch. It is mobile hardware. It has basic 2016 era midrange smartphone levels of power. I'm not convinced that it is more powerful than an Xbox 360. And while there is a tremendous gap in capability and performance, the Switch still has a number of games that actually look pretty damn good on it, in spite of the fact that it is puny. Why? Because the art is good. Zelda might be overrated, and yes, you can see the hardware limitations of the Switch in full force, but the quality of the art in that game is exemplary, and for that it looks a lot more visually impressive than a lot of games that run on much more powerful hardware.

Hell, Half Life 2 still looks pretty good, and it's almost 20 years old now. Again, you won't mistake it for a modern game, but it aged well.

And then there's the realization that you don't need the new hardware to play a game. We aren't jumping from PS1 era graphics in to the early HD era. We are now limited more by the quality of the art than we are the power of the hardware.