This is A Potentially Ridiculous Article 

Seriously, it is a potentially ridiculous article, and mislead readers to comprehend the word "x86", for the following reasons:

1. Should sort AMD64 or Intel64 implementations as x86? Generally "x86" was used to point all the processors compatible with IA-32 ISA, might or might name themselves with "86", such as Cyrix 5x86, Intel Pentium 4 and so on. AMD64's long mode is devised by AMD rather than Intel, so how can one sort them together. Nowadays software labeled themselves as "x86" are IA-32 compatible software, and use "x64" or "x86-64" differentiating with it. So this article confuses reader getting in touch with this word. 

2. Generations? What is the 8th generation x86 processor? Who invented this kinda processors? AMD K8 just says that it succeeds AMD K7 rather than saying it is the 8th x86 processor, and I've never heard Intel call their x86 processors exceeding the 7th generation. And one thing should never be denied, the first generation of Itanium processor says its family model number as 7, which might potentially imply that Itanium might be the 7th x86 processor succeeding Pentium III, but none confirmed this. So take turn back the Transmeta's Crusoe and Efficeon, if the morph firmed on the system board implements x86 decoder call themselves as x86 processors, then if put the same processor on another board implementing PowerPC decoder, then it would be the PowerPC processor? At this situation, what kind of processor is it? Ridiculous! What's more for what sort it as the 7th/8th generation x86? Who is another Jane Austen, making up another Northanger Abbey?

3. "x86" is one architecture(ISA) name? What such a ridiculous thing that I've ever heard on earth! "x86" is used to referring the processor, a kind or series of processors rather than an architecture. If it were the name of an architecture, then in this logic way, Intel 80486 is one of the "implementation" of this "architecture"?