All graphics will be integrated into the CPU, where it can be done better and faster than on a GPU
You're gonna hafta make a few arguments to back up that claim, 'cause as far as I know, it's just plain not true. The whole graphical computation biz is based on a certain architecture; underlying physics/graphics is done using matrices and linear algebraic computations. That kind of stuff is done in a massively paralel fashion. Your cpu works in a different way; the underlying layout for the circuits on the chips make the cpu/gpu 'incompatible'.
Not only that, but integrating gpu in the cpu does something terrible for yields; two different complex architectures in one package is error prone, and if either the cpu or the gpu have too many errors, the whole combination-package must be thrown away. And that's VERY expensive. It's one of the main reasons why second level cache is so low.
So keeping the gpu and the cpu seperate is quite important, and not just for these two reasons.
The gpu/cpu combo only makes sense if you're going the massively multithreaded route, with a massive network of parralel gpu/cpu's working in combinationb with each other....which brings up hardware/programming issues all of it's own.
So, I've done my homework (most of it at uni), now you show yours; I'm quite curious to hear your arguments, and that ain't sarcasm.