For example, based on my understanding of how Windows works, I could choose a slightly disingenuous example to beat even Singularity's ABI count:

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <Windows.h>
#include <intrin.h>

#define ITERATION_COUNT    1000000
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
    size_t start, end;
    size_t i;
    size_t cycles;
    DWORD _result = 0;

    while(TRUE)
    {
        // setup the thread so the scheduler doesn't get in the way of our measurements:
        SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST);
        Sleep(10); // yield the thread

        // we now have a full timeslice to play with:
        start = __rdtsc();
        for(i = 0; i < ITERATION_COUNT; i++)
        {
            _result ^= GetTickCount();
        }
        end = __rdtsc();

        cycles = end - start;
        cycles /= ITERATION_COUNT;

        printf("Cycles: %d\n", cycles);
    }
    return 0;
}

Which prints

Cycles: 11
Cycles: 11
Cycles: 11
Cycles: 12
Cycles: 11
Cycles: 11
Cycles: 11
Cycles: 10
Cycles: 11

on my machine - six times faster than the number that Singularity is claiming victory with.

It's slightly disingenuous because GetTickCount() doesn't actually perform a switch into kernel-mode, even though the result is computed by the kernel, but rather uses a special region of memory designed precisely for sharing precomputed values between the kernel and usermode (which seems like a fair comparison if the Singularity team are going to play shenanigans with "kernel api"s that just return precomputed results in order to cheat on benchmarks)

But even if I choose something that actually does do a proper kernel mode switch such as NtClose(NULL), you'll see a nearly six-fold difference between what a syscall actually costs and what that paper is reporting it to cost.

So in summary: benchmarks without a good understanding of what the benchmark is benchmarking and without careful analysis of whether the benchmark is a valid comparison have a tendency to be devious and to bias strongly in favour of whatever the author wants it to say.

So yeah. Again, I call shenanigans.