Wow that seems excessive for the majority of users. I assume that they will have versions (the same model not lower models) with less for cheaper for those who don't need that much.

For multi-monitor setups, I agree with you moose. Otherwise that is a little excessive. I have no problems keeping up with anything on my 670s and they only have 2 GB of VRAM. I assume even double that would last me into the next couple years of gaming. Of course, I have no idea of the rate at which VRAM usage is growing in currently developing games, so I can't say for sure. I definitely wouldn't need 8 GB and would hope for a model with less, especially in a laptop where you are even less likely to have a multi-monitor setup.

moose517
with as detailed as games are getting i think the 8gb is about right.  especially as you start getting into multi monitor setups.

Sure it can be used.  But as I said, I think the "majority of users" will be fine with 4GB of VRAM for quite a while.  I'm just saying that I hope there are options for pricing reasons since I don't think the majority will need 8GB of VRAM.

My understanding on that was that the roadmap was actually showing full system RAM levels, not the VRAM quantity.
 
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-maxwell-geforce-800m-mobility-lineup-launches-february-2014-geforce-gtx-880m-8-gb-lead-pack/
 
"Update - The specified memory is not the actual VRAM of the chips but the system ram for the entire notebook. The VRAM has yet to be defined by NVIDIA."

If it is mobile, why the misleading title?  It should read "GTX880M".  The funny part is that the source of this "rumor" is actually legit, it is an accidentally published product roadmap that only shows enough info to show that Clevo is keeping up with product refreshes, but nothing else of interest.
  

Aggressor Prime
Granted, this is the mobile 880, but I would expect the desktop to have 8GB as well.

Based on what?  The mobile GK104 cards (GTX680M, GTX685M, GTX780M) all had 4GB default at 5GHz, yet the reference cards with the same GPU for desktop only had 2GB default but up at 6GHz.   It has been like this for years, mobile high-end has always had more Vram at a lower frequency than the desktop counterpart with the same GPU.  Bookmark the GeForce.com archive along with notebookcheck.net.  
 

Aggressor PrimeBut who knows, the mobile version may be the same die as the desktop version.

"Who knows", yet you already made up your mind with the misleading title per your expectation not based on history.  About the only logical conclusion is that the reference desktop card using the same GPU as "GTX880M" will have less VRam, but it means next to nothing since we don't know which brand of graphics card will get which GPU die.
 
 
HD8970M is effectively a rebranded HD7970M with a frequency bump, just like GTX780M was a rebranded GTX685MX with a frequency bump.  AMD will want to reorient their mobile GPU with the new Rx-200 branding for consistency and refresh, so I imagine nVidia will bring GTX800M to counter it.  HD7970M used a Pitcarin-based GPU from a desktop HD7870, which is now a R8-200 series card; thus HD8970M's successor will be branded "R9-290M" or something.  
 
 
Let's say nVidia rebranded GTX780M as GTX880M, reusing the same GK104 with 1536-CUDA but at a higher core clock; 8GB can come from using higher density chips thus not incuring a power increase.  Voila!  New mobile graphics card, no need for Maxwell or higher CUDA count since even HD8970M is 7% slower than GTX780M anyway. 

I wouldn't mind seeing cards offered natively with >4GB of VRAM.  5040x1050 on 1.5GB 580's is, well, shockingly difficult to manage at times.
 
So, I'm waiting on stuff like the 800 series and 700 series to go dirt-cheap so I can scoop some good used cards off of people, or perhaps save quite a while in order to get 3 modern GPUs.

Seeing this really makes me feel insecure about my 1g 560 ti models.....
I only play on 1080p, but still even with no AA on the games, my cards are struggling.  I swore that any cares I purchase will have a minimum of 3gb of vram.
 
Based on this, it makes me feel as though I may want to raise that up as I plan to have my next upgrade last me a good 3+ years.  I have gotten 28 months out of these cards, and it is time for the upgrade..
 
With the amount of ram the new consoles are using, I expect ports and other games to really grow in size of the vram they will use.
§

lehpron
These consoles are meant to last 6-8 years, no one keeps a PC that long without upgrading it; but for the sake of argument: Let's say we all somehow got one fancy magically computer from the future, does it use all its resources to run a game from the year 2013?  No.  Evidence?  Run any game from 5-8 years old on your computer now, those games won't utilize your hardware since they were designed for the hardware of the time.
 
 
In other words, ports coming from these new consoles WILL NOT use all the resources of the console, not for many years; and therefore you don't need a fancy supercomputer from the future to run it.  Although note, consoles aren't exactly running those games at max details, if you choose to crank up the details in a port, then you create your own insecurity, it fault doesn't go to your old computer.

 
You are correct.  I didn't mean to imply that it would be required to run the games and make them playable.  I simply meant that if I wanted to play the games that are released in the next 3 years or so at the same max settings that I enjoy now, then I fully expect them to utilize much more vram than current, especially when you consider the likely increase in resolution.  It is the same as you referenced about older games on my current system.  That is just the natural order of computers and software.
 
I currently play at only 1080p, but that will change before I am done using my next upgrade of video cards.  I may go 4k, or just 1440p.  I may even go surround 7860x1440.  It all depends on multiple variables at the time of the upgrade.
I realize that the need for AA at the higher resolutions is greatly reduced (eliminated for many), so that would in a sense eliminate some of the demand on the vram, but one thing is certain.  The amount of vram systems will need to run the games at the highest settings will go up.
 
I merely just feel it is going to be going up at a higher rate than it has over the last 3-4 years.
 
§

Hopefully this is a sign of what the desktop cards are likely to offer. I've been patient about upgrading my GTX 570 with it's 1.28Gb VRAM, definitely not enough anymore.

ty_ger07
Can the topic title be changed to "8GB of SYSTEM RAM confirmed for a model of laptop with 880M?

8GB of VRAM was not confirmed. System RAM obviously does not equal VRAM.

Actually yes it can. Since most laptops will either use onboard system ram or a combo of both system and gpu ram.

Killmur

ty_ger07
Can the topic title be changed to "8GB of SYSTEM RAM confirmed for a model of laptop with 880M?

8GB of VRAM was not confirmed. System RAM obviously does not equal VRAM.

Actually yes it can. Since most laptops will either use onboard system ram or a combo of both system and gpu ram.

They won't use system RAM with a high end discrete GPU such as the 880m. They don't usually pool system RAM with a discrete GPU due to CPU load and PCI-E load which would be incurred. When RAM is pooled, that is almost always with an "onboard" GPU or some other low performance GPU.

Do you own a gaming laptop? Have you owned multiple gaming laptops? My nomadic life encourages me to be pretty proficient on this subject.

 
8GB's would be great for future proofing. That's good news.

By the time your system starts to get close to that 8GB mark, your rig is going to get owned!! Especially with a mobile GPU. Hell even if you start reaching close to the 4GB mark with most desktop cards people systems tend to get owned in gaming performance. They better have SLI with that mobile GPU if its going to carry 8GBs.

Much needed to play at high res.

Then they need to address those issues so we get what we paid for, not less