Umm...if you aren't going to be using (significantly) shader utilizing games, and the 5200
Ultra is indeed within your budget, it should be a better card overall. Depending on the bandwidth demands of Doom 3, for example, the 9200 might even be faster (tricky...the 5200 Ultra shaders are slower, but fillrate and bandwidth demands for texture applications should play a more significant role).
BTW, just because the GF 3, 8500/9100, and Ti 4200 are old doesn't mean you shouldn't consider them...that list is in order of ascending general performance, with the 8500 clearly leading the GF 3 cards, but the Ti 4200 tending to have more raw power to make up for its lack of advanced functionality. AF and AA would change that picture a bit though. Also, don't get caught up in the name game (the 8500 is better than the 9200 and 9000...it has more raw power and the
same advanced functionality in hardware that simply wasn't utilized much in its lifetime).
Also, if the 5200 Ultra is in your budget, the 9600 non Pro should be in your budget, if pricewatch listings (around $130 for both) are accurate. But maybe that depends on where you are.
Some benchmark comparisons:
9600 non Pro results (actually, maybe just a 9600 Pro underclocked to 325/200, some sites seem to do things like that).
5200 Ultra results (on a 2.8 GHz system versus the 3.06 GHz one above).
The cards tested on both sets of graphs seems to show the CPU speed impact insignificant for the results AFAICS, but it is something to be aware of.
