There are a few critical errors in the article:
What stands out from the new structure is the Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group. They specifically characterized the function as "non-volatile" which means that they aren't targeting DRAM at all.
That's because Intel hasn't been in the DRAM business for decades, and the NVM Group has been there for years. Entering the business now wouldn't make any sense given that DRAM revenues are more or less flat and there's been more and more consolidation lately.
Given the cost structure, if 3D XPoint read speeds are "near or equivalent to DRAM read speeds," and all writes go into the speedy eDRAM cache, then the need for standalone DRAM has just vanished.
The eDRAM cache is used by the IGP. Sure Intel could use it for IO caching as well, but the capacities are small (less than what SSDs have) and DRAM is volatile, hence making it vulnerable to power losses.
All in all, 3D XPoint is only talk at this point. Until the first product ships and we know all the essential specs (price, real-world performance and endurance, performance and endurance in long-term etc.), it's impossible to realistically estimate the impact that 3D XPoint may have.
The author also seems to think that Intel and Micron will be the only company with this sort of technology, which is not true. Everyone is preparing their own, similar technologies and while Intel may have a lead in the beginning, the competition will get fierce as others enter the market segment.