Python 2, 179 bytes

from threading import*
from time import*
m=time
s=m()
t=[0]
r=[]
def f():n=m();sleep(9);t[0]+=m()-n
exec"r+=[Thread(None,f)];r[-1].start();"*8
for d in r:d.join()
print m()-s,t[0]

This requires an OS with time precision greater than 1 second to work properly (in other words, any modern OS). 8 threads are created which sleep for 9 seconds each, resulting in a realtime runtime of ~9 seconds, and a parallel runtime of ~72 seconds.

Though the official documentation says that the Thread constructor should be called with keyword arguments, I throw caution to the wind and use positional arguments anyway. The first argument (group) must be None, and the second argument is the target function.

t must be an object type (like a list), and not a simple type (like an int), or else the t in the function will be a local and not a reference to the global. Furthermore, assignment can't be used, or else a local variable will be created. Instead, element access is used to force the reference to be a reference to the global.

Try it online

Thanks to DenkerAffe for -5 bytes with the exec trick.

Thanks to kundor for -7 bytes by pointing out that the thread argument is unnecessary.

Go - 189 bytes

Thanks @cat!

package main
import(."fmt";."time");var m,t=60001,make(chan int,m);func main(){s:=Now();for i:=0;i<m;i++{go func(){Sleep(Millisecond);t<-0}()};c:=0;for i:=0;i<m;i++{c++};Print(Since(s),c)}

Outputs (ms): 160.9939ms,60001 (160ms to wait 60.001 seconds)

Bash 196 117 114 93 bytes

Updated to support better time precision by integrating suggestions from @manatwork and @Digital Trauma as well as a few other space optimizations:

d()(date +$1%s.%N;)
b=`d`
for i in {1..8};{ (d -;sleep 8;d +)>>j&}
wait
bc<<<`d`-$b
bc<<<`<j`

Note that this assumes the j file is absent at the beginning.

Bash + GNU utilities, 85

\time -f%e bash -c 'for i in {1..8};{ \time -aoj -f%e sleep 8&};wait'
paste -sd+ j|bc

Forces the use of the time executable instead of the shell builtin by prefixing with a \.

Appends to a file j, which must be empty or non-existent at the start.

JavaScript (ES6), 148 bytes

with(performance)Promise.all([...Array(9)].map(_=>new Promise(r=>setTimeout(_=>r(t+=now()),7e3,t-=now())),t=0,n=now())).then(_=>alert([now()-n,t]));

Promises to wait 9 times for 7 seconds for a total of 63 seconds (actually 63.43 when I try), but only actually takes 7.05 seconds of real time when I try.

Javascript (ES6), 212 203 145 bytes

This code creates 10 images with a time interval of exactly 6 seconds each, upon loading.

The execution time goes a tiny bit above it (due to overhead).

This code overwrites everything in the document!

P=performance,M=P.now(T=Y=0),document.body.innerHTML='<img src=# onerror=setTimeout(`T+=P.now()-M,--i||alert([P.now()-M,T])`,6e3) >'.repeat(i=10)

This assumes that you use a single-byte encoding for the backticks, which is required for the Javascript engine to do not trip.

Alternativelly, if you don't want to spend 6 seconds waiting, here's a 1-byte-longer solution that finishes in less than a second:

P=performance,M=P.now(T=Y=0),document.body.innerHTML='<img src=# onerror=setTimeout(`T+=P.now()-M,--i||alert([P.now()-M,T])`,600) >'.repeat(i=100)

The difference is that this code waits 600ms across 100 images. This will give a massive ammount of overhead.

Old version (203 bytes):

This code creates 10 iframes with a time interval of exactly 6 seconds each, instead of creating 10 images.

for(P=performance,M=P.now(T=Y=i=0),D=document,X=_=>{T+=_,--i||alert([P.now()-M,T])};i<10;i++)I=D.createElement`iframe`,I.src='javascript:setTimeout(_=>top.X(performance.now()),6e3)',D.body.appendChild(I)

Original version (212 bytes):

P=performance,M=P.now(T=Y=0),D=document,X=_=>{T+=_,Y++>8&&alert([P.now()-M,T])},[...''+1e9].map(_=>{I=D.createElement`iframe`,I.src='javascript:setTimeout(_=>top.X(performance.now()),6e3)',D.body.appendChild(I)})

PowerShell v4, 144 bytes

$d=date;gjb|rjb
1..20|%{sajb{$x=date;sleep 3;((date)-$x).Ticks/1e7}>$null}
while(gjb -s "Running"){}(gjb|rcjb)-join'+'|iex
((date)-$d).Ticks/1e7

Sets $d equal to Get-Date, and clears out any existing job histories with Get-Job | Remove-Job. We then loop 1..20|%{...} and each iteration execute Start-Job passing it the script block {$x=date;sleep 3;((date)-$x).ticks/1e7} for the job (meaning each job will execute that script block). We pipe that output to >$null in order to suppress the feedback (i.e., job name, status, etc.) that gets returned.

The script block sets $x to Get-Date, then Start-Sleep for 3 seconds, then takes a new Get-Date reading, subtracts $x, gets the .Ticks, and divides by 1e7 to get the seconds (with precision).

Back in the main thread, so long as any job is still -Status "Running", we spin inside an empty while loop. Once that's done, we Get-Job to pull up objects for all the existing jobs, pipe those to Receive-Job which will pull up the equivalent of STDOUT (i.e., what they output), -join the results together with +, and pipe it to iex (Invoke-Expression and similar to eval). This will output the resultant sleep time plus overhead.

The final line is similar, in that it gets a new date, subtracts the original date stamp $d, gets the .Ticks, and divides by 1e7 to output the total execution time.

NB

OK, so this is a little bendy of the rules. Apparently on first execution, PowerShell needs to load a bunch of .NET assemblies from disk for the various thread operations as they're not loaded with the default shell profile. Subsequent executions, because the assemblies are already in memory, work fine. If you leave the shell window idle long enough, you'll get PowerShell's built-in garbage collection to come along and unload all those assemblies, causing the next execution to take a long time as it re-loads them. I'm not sure of a way around this.

You can see this in the execution times in the below runs. I started a fresh shell, navigated to my golfing directory, and executed the script. The first run was horrendous, but the second (executed immediately) worked fine. I then left the shell idle for a few minutes to let garbage collection come by, and then that run is again lengthy, but subsequent runs again work fine.

Example runs

Windows PowerShell
Copyright (C) 2014 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

PS H:\> c:

PS C:\> cd C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing

PS C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing> .\wait-a-minute.ps1
63.232359
67.8403415

PS C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing> .\wait-a-minute.ps1
61.0809705
8.8991164

PS C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing> .\wait-a-minute.ps1
62.5791712
67.3228933

PS C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing> .\wait-a-minute.ps1
61.1303589
8.5939405

PS C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing> .\wait-a-minute.ps1
61.3210352
8.6386886

PS C:\Tools\Scripts\golfing>

Ruby, 92

n=->{Time.now}
t=n[]
a=0
(0..9).map{Thread.new{b=n[];sleep 6;a+=n[]-b}}.map &:join
p n[]-t,a

JavaScript (ES6, using WebWorkers), 233 215 bytes

c=s=0;d=new Date();for(i=14;i-->0;)(new Worker(URL.createObjectURL(new Blob(['a=new Date();setTimeout(()=>postMessage(new Date()-a),5e3)'])))).onmessage=m=>{s+=m.data;if(++c>13)console.log((new Date()-d)/1e3,s/1e3)}

UPD: replaced the way a worker is executed from a string with a more compact and cross-browser one, in the aspect of cross-origin policies. Won't work in Safari, if it still have webkitURL object instead of URL, and in IE.

Dyalog APL, 65 27 23 bytes

This is a function that ignores its argument and returns a two-element vector, the first element being the amount of time spent on the main thread, and the second being the total amount of time spent on all threads, in seconds.

{(⌈/,+/)⎕TSYNC⎕DL&¨9/7}

I.e.:

      {(⌈/,+/)⎕TSYNC⎕DL&¨9/7}⍬
7.022 63.162

Explanation:

• ⎕DL&¨9/7: spin off 9 threads, each of which waits for 7 seconds. ⎕DL returns the actual amount of time spent waiting, in seconds, which will be the same as its argument give or take a few milliseconds.
• ⎕TSYNC: wait for all threads to complete, and get the result for each thread.
• (⌈/,+/): return the longest execution time of one single thread (during the execution of which all other threads finished, so this is the actual runtime), followed by the sum of the execution time of all threads.

Javascript (ES6), 105 bytes

((t,c,d)=>{i=t();while(c--)setTimeout((c,s)=>{d+=t()-s;if(!c)alert([t()-i,d])},8e3,c,t())})(Date.now,8,0)

Updated version: 106 bytes Borrowed from @Ismael Miguel as he had the great idea to lower sleep time and raise intervals.

((t,c,d)=>{i=t();while(c--)setTimeout((c,s)=>{d+=t()-s;if(!c)alert([t()-i,d])},610,c,t())})(Date.now,99,0)

Javascript Ungolfed, 167 bytes

(function(t, c, d){
	i = t();
	while(c--){
		setTimeout(function(c, s){
			d += t() - s;
			if (!c) alert([t() - i, d])
		}, 8e3, c, t())
	}
})(Date.now, 8, 0)

Java, 358 343 337 316 313 bytes

import static java.lang.System.*;class t extends Thread{public void run(){long s=nanoTime();try{sleep(999);}catch(Exception e){}t+=nanoTime()-s;}static long t,i,x;public static void main(String[]a)throws Exception{x=nanoTime();for(;++i<99;)new t().start();sleep(9000);out.println((nanoTime()-x)/1e9+" "+t/1e9);}}

and ungolfed

import static java.lang.System.*;

class t extends Thread {
    public void run() {
        long s = nanoTime();
        try {
            sleep(999);
        } catch (Exception e) {
        }
        t += nanoTime() - s;
    }

    static long t,i,x;

    public static void main(String[] a) throws Exception {
        x = nanoTime();
        for (; ++i < 99;)
            new t().start();
        sleep(9000);
        out.println((nanoTime() - x) / 1e9 + " " + t / 1e9);
    }
}

please don't try it at home, as this solution is not thread safe.

Edit:

I took @A Boschman's and @Adám's suggestions, and now my program require less than 10 seconds to run, and it's shorter by 15 bytes.

Rust, 257, 247 bytes

I use the same times as Mego's Python answer.

Really the only slightly clever bit is using i-i to get a Duration of 0 seconds.

fn main(){let n=std::time::Instant::now;let i=n();let h:Vec<_>=(0..8).map(|_|std::thread::spawn(move||{let i=n();std::thread::sleep_ms(9000);i.elapsed()})).collect();let mut t=i-i;for x in h{t+=x.join().unwrap();}print!("{:?}{:?}",t,i.elapsed());}

Prints:

Duration { secs: 71, nanos: 995877193 }Duration { secs: 9, nanos: 774491 }

Ungolfed:

fn main(){
    let n = std::time::Instant::now;
    let i = n();
    let h :Vec<_> =
        (0..8).map(|_|
            std::thread::spawn(
                move||{
                    let i = n();
                    std::thread::sleep_ms(9000);
                    i.elapsed()
                }
            )
        ).collect();
    let mut t=i-i;
    for x in h{
        t+=x.join().unwrap();
    }
    print!("{:?}{:?}",t,i.elapsed());
}

Edit: good old for loop is a bit shorter

Ruby (with parallel gem), 123 bytes

require 'parallel'
t=Time.now
q=0
Parallel.each(1..10,:in_threads=>10){z=Time.now;sleep 6;q+=Time.now-z}
puts Time.now-t,q

Groovy, 158 characters

d={System.currentTimeMillis()}
s=d(j=[])
13.times{Thread.start{b=d()
sleep 5000
synchronized(j){j<<d()-b}}}addShutdownHook{print([(d()-s)/1000,j.sum()/1000])}

Sampler run:

bash-4.3$ groovy wait1minute.groovy 
[5.082, 65.164]

Mathematica, 109 bytes

a=AbsoluteTiming;LaunchKernels@7;Plus@@@a@ParallelTable[#&@@a@Pause@9,{7},Method->"EvaluationsPerKernel"->1]&

Anonymous function. Requires a license with 7+ sub-kernels to run. Takes 9 seconds realtime and 63 seconds kernel-time, not accounting for overhead. Make sure to only run the preceding statements once (so it doesn't try to re-launch kernels). Testing:

In[1]:= a=AbsoluteTiming;LaunchKernels@7;func=Plus@@@a@ParallelTable[#&@@a@Pause
@9,{7},Method->"EvaluationsPerKernel"->1]&;

In[2]:= func[]

Out[2]= {9.01498, 63.0068}

In[3]:= func[]

Out[3]= {9.01167, 63.0047}

In[4]:= func[]

Out[4]= {9.00587, 63.0051}

Javascript (ES6), 108 bytes

I'm making a new answer since this uses a slightly different aproach.

It generates a massive amount of setTimeouts, which are almost all executed with 4ms between them.

Each interval is of 610 milliseconds, over a total of 99 intervals.

P=performance,M=P.now(T=Y=0),eval('setTimeout("T+=P.now()-M,--i||alert([P.now()-M,T])",610);'.repeat(i=99))

It usually runs within 610ms, for a total execution time of around 60.5 seconds.

This was tested on Google Chrome version 51.0.2704.84 m, on windows 8.1 x64.

C, 128 bytes (spins CPU)

This solution spins the CPU instead of sleeping, and counts time using the times POSIX function (which measures CPU time consumed by the parent process and in all waited-for children).

It forks off 7 processes which spin for 9 seconds apiece, and prints out the final times in C clocks (on most systems, 100 clock ticks = 1 second).

t;v[4];main(){t=time(0);fork(fork(fork()));while(time(0)<=t+9);wait(0);wait(0);wait(0)>0&&(times(v),printf("%d,%d",v[0],v[2]));}

Sample output:

906,6347

meaning 9.06 seconds real time and 63.47 seconds total CPU time.

For best results, compile with -std=c90 -m32 (force 32-bit code on a 64-bit machine).

C (with pthreads), 339 336 335 bytes

#include<stdio.h>
#include<sys/time.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#define d double
d s=0;int i;pthread_t p[14];d t(){struct timeval a;gettimeofday(&a,NULL);return a.tv_sec+a.tv_usec/1e6;}
h(){d b=t();sleep(5);s+=t()-b;}
main(){d g=t();for(i=14;i-->0;)pthread_create(&p[i],0,&h,0);for(i=14;i-->0;)pthread_join(p[i],0);printf("%f %f",t()-g,s);}